Friday, 13 June 1986 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled; the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as `Capital Gains Tax after death' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that the proposed Fringe Benefits Tax recently introduced into the House of Representatives by the Labor Government will increase the costs and inhibit future growth of small business in this great Nation. Your petitioners request that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this regressive Legislation as a matter of utmost urgency in the interests of the well being of all Australians. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Walters (from 99 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas We do not believe there are any legitimate grounds for Telecom to increase its charges to the public, most especially in view of its own demonstrated inefficiencies in being unable to provide the basic services to the public for which the existing charges are already excessive. Members of the Australian Small Business Community express concern at the effect the inefficiency of Telecom has on the day to day operation of business in Australia. Any business enterprise in order to justify an increase in charges for its services would need to demonstrate an ability to improve such services. Telecom would need to provide such proof in order to justify its present level of charges. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable Senate will: reject the principle of increased Telecom charges and inefficiency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 155 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: That we strongly support `The A.C.T. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisement Prohibition Bill' introduced by Senator Evans, because it represents the first positive national step towards the eventual elimination of wide-spread serious ill health caused by smoking tobacco. by Senator Vigor (from 149 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Bill of Rights Bill is a harmful, dangerous and divisive proposal, the provisions of which are authoritarian and anti-democratic. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir John Carrick (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we oppose utterly the proposed Bill of Rights because this Bill will Transfer to government powers not given nor intended to be given by the Constitution Threaten our rights by making them subject to the will of this and any future Government Turn the Human Rights Commission into a political Star Chamber with unjustifiable power Abrogate Common Law and common liberty Set the State above the individual Restrict Rights to those specified by the Bill We the undersigned believe in democracy and freedom and earnestly entreat you to recognise that this Bill will undermine the fundamental basis of these. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject a Bill of Rights in this or any other form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 80 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: the humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the proposed Bill of Rights because it adversely affects areas of the liberty and freedom of Australians. It will operate against: The States and our Federal system of Government Criminal Justice The Police Education Families Employer/Employee relations It will remove the power of the people through Parliament, by giving power to a new more powerful Human Rights Commission which is not elected, but can act as a Star Chamber. We do most earnestly wish to keep our system of Common Law. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should reject this Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil (from 13 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned members of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association and Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. The Sex Discrimination Act., passed by Parliament in 1984, will automatically make unenforceable from 1st August, 1986 the weight lifting limits applicable to women employees and contained in State laws, regulations and awards. 2. These weight lifting limits have applied throughout Australia for many years and have acted to prevent many injuries at the workplace, thereby avoiding much suffering and loss of working time. 3. The removal of this protective legislation will increase the rate of injury among women employees and lead to greater Workers' Compensation costs for employers. 4. The weight lifting limits do not in any way hamper the achievement of equality and equal opportunity in employment for women employees in the workforce. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Parliament will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to enable the weight lifting limits for women employees to continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 38 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under Common Law, 2. Deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. Give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. Could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: Completely reject both the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 408 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament. Your petitioners, as in duty bound will humbly pray. That a public inquiry be conducted for the migration of the Chirita family (father) Marin Chirita and (fiancee) Marc Codruta to be allowed into Australia and that the rights of Ion Chirita be recognised in Queensland. by Senator Gietzelt (from 17 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That human embryos deserve legal protection to enable the development of their full human potential. Your petitioners request that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should: Pass Senator Harradine's Bill to prohibit experiments involving the use of human embryos created by in vitro fertilization. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Michael Baume (from 337 citizens), Hamer (from 108 citizens) and Macklin (from 245 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject any suggestion that family allowances be paid at a flat rate and instead should ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Reid (from 63 citizens) and Ryan (from 55 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembly in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth . . . That the film ``Hail Mary'' is pornographic and blasphemous and gravely offends our religious beliefs and those of the vast majority of Australian Christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Parliament will . . . Respect the will of the undersigned and have the pornographic and blasphemous film ``Hail Mary'' banned in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bjelke-Petersen (from 37 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned in the State of Queensland respectfully showeth the film ``Hail Mary'' is blasphemous and gravely offends the religious beliefs of the majority of Australian Christians. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the Federal Parliament will respect the will of the undersigned and have the blasphemous film ``Hail Mary'' banned in Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Boswell (from 36 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and the Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Brownhill (from 21 citizens) and Harradine (from 43 citizens). To: The honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Parliament of Australia assembled We the undersigned, plead that Parliament will revoke and replace with family-oriented persons, all appointments to the Film Censorship Board prior to 1985, and thus improve the nurturing home environment of Australia's children, because we have read pages 149 to 152 of the Official Hansard Transcript of Evidence to the Select Committee on Video Material, and we ask you to read it. Your petitioners humbly pray that you will give this matter your earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Harradine (from 164 citizens). To the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled, a petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the present practice of embryo experimentation as a byproduct of in vitro fertilisation programmes throughout Australia, defies the obligation of our community to protect human beings from the first moment of their existence as specified in the principles of the Human Rights Commission of Australia and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will legislate to outlaw embryo experimentation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lewis (from 209 citizens). Petitions received. Senator COONEY(Victoria) —Pursuant to my notices of intention given yesterday, I now withdraw Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of Defence Determination No. 14, Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name for this day and Notice of Motion No. 3 standing in my name for 22 August 1986 for disallowance of Plan of Management No. 5 Southern Bluefin Fishery Management Plan (Amendment). Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, reaffirming that- (a) the ANZUS Treaty is of great importance to the security of Australia; and (b) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is vital to the control of the movement of fissile material for peacetime purposes and for the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons, rejects the outright opposition by the Australian Democrats Party to these two treaties, an opposition the effect of which would be to weaken the peace and security of Australia and the world. Senator VIGOR(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to make proper provision for the self-government of the Australian Capital Territory by the establishment of a freely and democratically elected assembly with legislative powers. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting that in view of the many anomalies, inconsistencies and mistakes in drafting of the Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Act and the Fringe Benefits Assessment Act, which were evident during the debate in the Senate and which are becoming increasingly evident to practitioners, taxpayers and their representatives, calls upon the Federal Government to make plain its intention to deal with these problems and, in particular, make clear its intention with regard to the apparently unintended effect of S160zm of the Income Tax Assessment (Capital Gains) Act which prevents unit trusts passing on to unit holders the benefit of a taxation deduction for depreciation and building allowance deductions which are available to other entities holding real property in similar situations. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal- (a) that the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS) had issued several hundred thousand killing tags in excess of its 1985 quota; (b) that no attempt was made to monitor the kill; (c) that the QNPWS had failed to distinguish between the various species of kangaroo when it approved the 1985 and previous quotas-and there was a `real possibility' that at least one species might now be in danger of becoming extinct; (d) that the administrators of wildlife protection legislation of the Federal Parliament had totally misunderstood the effect of that legislation; and (e) that the Australian and the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Services seem to be only concerned with getting formal approval for a plan to enable culling of kangaroos and export of kangaroo products to continue, urges the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) to enforce the laws passed by this Parliament to ensure the protection measures for Australian wildlife imposed by legislation are implemented in accordance with its provisions and in a manner likely to achieve its objectives. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(9.07) —by leave-I present the Government's response to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare report `Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care-a National Perspective'. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- Statement on the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on ``Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care-A National Perspective''. For the information of Honourable Senators, I present the Government's response to the Report of the Senate Select Committee on ``Children in Institutional and Other Forms of Care-A National Perspective'' of June 1985. The Report examines in a sensitive and thoughtful manner the provision of institutional and other forms of substitute care for children. There can be no doubt about the importance of the quality of planning, provision, monitoring and evaluation of this type of care. However, the Government considers this care the responsibility of State Governments. Further it believes State governments and the community organisations involved take this responsibility very seriously and devote considerable attention and resources to the provision of institutional care where this is necessary, to foster care programs and to the supports needed by families and children prior to, during and after substitute care has been provided. All have the aim of providing care and development opportunities which will fit the children to grow into well integrated adults who can play a useful role in the community. Despite the sincere intentions of State governments and community organisations working in this field new needs are identified and new approaches to meeting needs emerge. This Report highlights the requirement for careful planning, constant monitoring and evaluation, and high quality training for those working in the field. It also stresses the need for greater sharing of knowledge and experience and co-ordination of effort. The Government believes the Report is worthy of close consideration by Commonwealth and State Ministers and arrangements will be made for it to be drawn to the particular attention of all Commonwealth Ministers. Additionally, I will seek to have it placed as an Agenda Item on the next Meeting of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers; a body comprising Commonwealth and State Ministers with responsibility in the social welfare field. By these means the Government believes action which takes account of the good work being done will be able to be carefully considered and any co-ordinated action required at the Commonwealth and State levels identified. The Committee identified 10 major areas and developed recommendations within each of these areas. This response identifies each area together with recommendations and provides an outline of the Government response to each recommendation. Foster Parents' Allowance Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 1. The Commonwealth Government introduce a national foster parents' allowance to replace existing allowances for foster parents 2. The national foster parents' allowance- (a) fully compensate foster parents for the cost of maintaining children placed in their care; (b) be automatically indexed on a regular basis in line with variations in the cost of living; and (c) include a separate component representing the Family Allowance that would otherwise be payable to the foster child's natural mother or father. 3. The Minister for Social Security in consultation with State and Territory Ministers responsible for child welfare matters determine appropriate administrative arrangements for the payment of the national foster parents' allowance. Government Response The Government does not support the introduction of a national foster parents' allowance. The introduction of such an allowance would mean the Commonwealth entering a well defined and accepted area of State Government responsibility. Foster care is viewed as a key service within the State's child protection and child welfare systems and it would seem quite inappropriate to remove one facet-the payment of the foster parents' allowance-from those systems. The Committee recommendation was based on two arguments: that introduction of a Commonwealth allowance would ``avoid the variations in value of the allowances paid by the various States and Territory Governments'' and ``ensure uniformity of practice in the payment of Commonwealth Family Allowances''. In response to these arguments the Government is of the view that the variations of allowances between States is not sufficient justification to enter an area of child welfare so critical to State and Territory Government responsibility. It considers current family allowance arrangements pay due regard to the rights of both natural and foster parents and are sufficiently flexible to adequately cater for the range of situations that can arise in fostering cases. The Government has noted the Committee's recommendation in respect of the level of foster parents allowances and the need for indexation of the allowance in line with variations in the cost of living. It believes these matters are the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. Recommendation 4 Children in Residential Institutions Program 4. In determining an organisation's eligibility for funding under the Children in Residential Institutions Program, the Commonwealth Government requires State and Northern Territory education departments to place greater emphasis on (a) projects that encourage and assist children in institutional care to participate in education or training at least until they have completed a full secondary education or its equivalent; and (b) projects that prepare and equip those leaving residential institutions with independent living skills. Government Response The Minister for Education is presently considering the Schools Commission's report `Quality and Equality: Commonwealth Specific Purpose Programs for Australian Schools' which reports on its review of specific purpose programs. This review was sought by the Government in its 1983 guidelines to the Schools Commission. The Report takes into account the Review of the Children in Residential Institutions (CIRI) Program undertaken at the request of the Schools Commission by Professor Ward and others and the views put forward during consultation with interest groups (government and non-government) and State Committees responsible for administering the CIRI Programs. The recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare is consistent with the recommendations of the Schools Commission and the Senate Committee's proposals will be considered by the Government when it gives consideration to the Schools Commission's Report `Quality and Equality: Commonwealth Specific Purpose Program for Australian Schools'. Recommendation 7 Training programs for substitute care personnel 7. The Commonwealth Ministers for Community Services and Education, in consultation with State and Territory Ministers responsible for child welfare matters and non-government welfare organisations- (a) investigate the needs of government and non-government substitute care agencies for both pre-service and in-service training for personnel; (b) review existing pre-service substitute care training courses and programs in technical and further education institutions and other tertiary institutions and, where necessary, support the development and implementation of suitable diploma and certificate courses; and (c) examine the need for government financial assistance to meet the cost of replacing substitute care personnel participating in in-service activities and determine the most appropriate means of providing support for staff release and the replacement of staff attending in-service training programs. Government Response The Government considers the investigation of the training needs of staff of government and non-government agencies concerned with substitute care are primarily matters for State governments in co-operation with the non-government agencies. It believes any reviews of existing pre-service training courses (where these are appropriate) should be conducted in the State concerned under the aegis of the course advisory committee attached to higher education institutions and TAFE authorities and colleges. It is noted, however, that if further higher education places are needed for the training of staff working with children who are in substitute care, State and Territory Governments should submit proposals for the triennium 1988-1990. Data on such needs is collected over the 12 month period ending March 1987 when the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission's advice to the Government is due to be provided. Recommendation 5, 6, 8 and 9 Evaluation of substitute care services- 5. The Commonwealth Government promote the evaluation of substitute care services by assisting State and Territory government and non-government welfare departments and agencies to determine appropriate evaluation criteria and develop procedures for the establishment and maintenance of on-going evaluation programs. National statistics of children in substitute care- 6. The Minister for Community Services, through WELSTAT, give priority to the expansion of the present range of statistics on the characteristics of children in substitute care to include data on such matters as the reasons for children being placed in care (ie apart from whether they are placed in care because their welfare is at risk or because they have committed an offence), the duration of care arrangements, the number and nature of successive admissions, and the outcome of substitute care placements. Assessment and planning of substitute care placements 8. The Commonwealth Minister for Community Services seek the co-operation of State and Territory Ministers responsible for child welfare matters and non-government welfare agencies to establish a set of universally acceptable guiding principles for (a) the initial and continuing assessment of children requiring substitute care and (b) the development of a planned approach towards the placement of children in care. 9. the Commonwealth Government introduce a special substitute care grants program to assist government and non-government welfare agencies in the implementation of proper assessment and planning procedures for the placement of children in substitute care, including the design and maintenance of appropriate client data collection, storage and retrieval systems. Government Response State and Territory governments have primary responsibility for welfare programs concerning children and so also retain primary responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of these programs. As such, it is a function of State and Territory governments to develop appropriate planning and assessment procedures (Recommendation 8) and evaluation criteria, and to develop procedures for the establishment and maintenance of ongoing evaluation programs (Recommendation 5). Nonetheless, the Government is making considerable efforts to improve the monitoring and evaluation of welfare programs by providing assistance at the national level in establishing sound and useful data bases. The Government considers the collection of reliable and nationally consistent welfare statistics to be essential for the effective monitoring and evaluation of welfare services across Australia. The Government assists in establishing data collections in this area through its membership and financial support of the WELSTAT Project. The primary aim of WELSTAT is to develop standardised definitions and classifications for the collection of national welfare statistics. The Government supports the role played by WELSTAT in the collection of welfare statistics. The Commonwealth Department of Community Services provides a full-time officer to the WELSTAT Secretariat; contributes to the funding of another member of the Secretariat jointly with the States and Territories; and provides considerable administrative support to the Secretariat. (The WELSTAT Secretariat is located in the Department of Community Services in Canberra.) The Australian Bureau of Statistics also provides an outposted officer to the Secretariat. The Government sees its considerable financial and administrative support to the WELSTAT Secretariat as the most appropriate form of assistance it can provide to State and Territory governments and non-government organisations to assist in establishing common standards and statistics for the use in assessing and planning the placement of children in care (Recommendations 8 and 9). Since its inception in 1976 WELSTAT has achieved a great deal. In particular, WELSTAT has developed statistical standards on a range of welfare matters which directly impact upon children viz; Children in Care, Adoptions, Children under Detention, Child Maltreatment and Emergency (financial) Assistance. Data on Children in Care, Adoptions and Children under Detention has proved particularly valuable to State and Territory governments. WELSTAT National Working Party meetings are held regularly to review progress in all WELSTAT standards and statistical collections. The most recent meeting was held in Adelaide on 1-2 May 1986 for representatives of the Commonwealth and all States and Territories to discuss progress on the above standards and statistical collections relating to children. In particular, WELSTAT has been examining the range of data which is included in its Children in Care collection. The current Child in Care standards include statistics on, among other things, characteristics of children in institute care, and the reasons are placed in care, whether for offence or for care and protected reasons. WELSTAT is considering the feasibility of collecting data on the duration and type of care arrangements, and the number and type of successive admissions (Recommendation 6). Recommendation 10 Dissemination and exchange of information- 10. The Minister for Community Services seek the co-operation and assistance of State and Territory Ministers responsible for child welfare matters and non-government welfare agencies in devising appropriate mechanisms for promoting the dissemination and exchange of information concerning new developments and exemplary practices in the provision of institutional and other forms of substitute care (eg through the establishment of a national clearinghouse for studies related to children in substitute care and the joint sponsorship of regular national seminars, workshops or conferences). Government Response It is considered that mechanisms for promoting the dissemination and exchange of information exist. Peak bodies such as the Australian Early Childhood Association, the Australian Council of Social Service (both of which receive assistance from the Government) contribute to the dissemination and exchange of information. Additionally, the Institute of Family Studies, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Social Welfare Research Centre which are funded by the Commonwealth Government contribute to this distribution of research and other information. Recommendation 11 Family Support Services Scheme 11. The Family Support Services Scheme be continued and expanded by the Commonwealth Government. Government Response The Government has decided to continue the Family Support Services Scheme and negotiate with State and Territory governments in respect of a new cost shared program. These negotiations are proceeding and it is hoped to announce details of a new program shortly. It should, however, be mentioned that any new cost shared program will not cut across the responsibilities of State and Territory governments for the provision of institutional and other forms of substitute care. It would be hoped, however, that the development of family support networks would lead to a strengthening of families' ability to cope with stress and a lessening of need for substitute care for children. Recommendation 12 The Child Care Act 1972 The Government does not accept that the Child Care Act 1972 should be amended or replaced ``to reflect more accurately the Commonwealth's present and future role and policy direction'' related to child care and family support. It believes the present Act accurately reflects the Government's purpose in respect of the provision of centre based day care for children who are primarily of pre-school age. Other services e.g. family day care, outside school hours care and vacation care and services to children who have special needs are provided for under the general provisions of Children's Services Program (CSP) and family support services under a specific appropriation. It should be noted that funds provided under the Child Care Act or the provisions of the CSP are not directed at services which provide substitute care - rather services which provide care (generally in working hours) which complement the care provided by parents. Since the Senate Committee's Report was tabled, I have advised the Parliament that the primary objective of the Children's Services Program is to ensure that parents and children have access to quality children's services that are appropriate to their needs regardless of their income level, cultural background, disability or geographical location. Within this broad objective the Government's priorities are towards providing non-profit services that: promote the developmental, social, emotional and intellectual needs of children without substituting for the care they receive from their parents; are consistent with the Government's policies of equal opportunity and affirmative action, and are predominantly directed towards meeting the needs of children of working parents or parents who are undertaking vocational training to enter the workforce; encourage parent participation in management; are accessible to low and moderate income earners; focus on under school age children but also provide older children with care out of school hours and during school holidays; assist those with special needs such as Aboriginal, migrant and disabled children and children in remote and isolated parts of Australia; and are accessible to the general community. Recommendations 13-18 Establishment of a national children and families commission 13. The Commonwealth Government introduce legislation providing for the establishment of a national statutory authority to be known as the Australian Children and Families Commission to advise the Government on matters of policy concerning the development of welfare programs for children and families, and to develop strategies to improve the overall planning and co-ordination of such programs in co-operation with other Commonwealth departments, State and Territory governments, local government authorities and non-government agencies responsible for the provision of these programs. 14. The Australian Children and Families Commission be directly responsible to the Commonwealth Minister for Community Services. 15. The Commission comprise no more than nine members, including two representatives of State or Territory government welfare authorities, two representatives of the non-government sector, one Aboriginal representative, two representatives from other client groups, one representative with specialist qualifications, and a chairman appointed by the Minister for Community Services. 16. The Commission consult regularly with interested community groups and organisations, and establish an appropriate consultative mechanism for this purpose. 17. In addition to providing advice on child and family welfare policy matters and developing strategies to improve the planning and co-ordination of welfare programs, the Australian Children and Families Commission have the following functions: (a) the development of a set of guiding principles and national goals for the promotion of the well-being of children and families; (b) the on-going assessment of the effect on family functioning, including the economic status of families, of Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation and programs of family support; (c) the provision of advice to the Minister for Community Services on the effectiveness of such legislation and programs, including the formulation of recommendations to- (i) the development of improved methods of family support, including measures aimed at preventing family disruption, and (ii) the allocation of financial assistance to government and non-government organisations for the development, establishment and maintenance of appropriate specific purpose programs for children with particular needs such as those in institutional and other forms of substitute care, children who have offended against the law, homeless children, children who are victims of abuse, and children disadvantaged through intellectual or physical disability, ethnic or cultural background, or geographical isolation; (d) the provision of technical assistance and advice to the States and Territories for the evaluation of children's welfare programs and associated community services for families; (e) the conduct, promotion and co-ordination of research, together with the exchange of ideas and the dissemination of information, in relation to developments occurring within the child and family welfare field both in Australia and overseas; and (f) the continuing review of the education and training needs of persons involved in the delivery of child and family welfare programs. 18. The Institute of Family Studies be incorporated as the research arm of the Australian children and Families Commission. Government Response The Government quite clearly needs to monitor the effects of its existing welfare policies and practices on children and their families, review these policies and practices and, as appropriate make changes to them. However, it does not consider that the establishment of a National Children and Families Commission with the responsibility for advising the Minister on welfare programs and services relating to children and their families is an appropriate mechanism. Policies and practices which affect children and families are considered far wider than those which can be categorised as `welfare'-they include income security, taxation, and many (if not most) other areas of Commonwealth government responsibility. Reviews such as the present Social Security Review which is to give special attention to the needs of families with dependent children and the Schools Commission review of specific purpose programs (response to Recommendation 4 refers) are considered more effective means of focusing attention at present policies and practices and considering recommendations for change. The Government also believes there are mechanisms in place which afford it advice both in the broad social welfare field and the more specific field discussed in this Report, the child and family welfare field. In this respect the National Advisory Council on Social Welfare was established to advise the Ministers for Social Security and Community Services on current issues in social welfare and provide assessment and reviews of social welfare priorities. The Institute of Family Studies, fully funded by the Commonwealth with the object of promoting the protection of the family as the natural and fundamental group unit in society, undertakes research, promotes discussion of important areas and is another valuable source of advice. Amendments presently before the Parliament, implementing the recommendations of a review of the Institute in 1985, will enhance its ability to provide that advice in a way which will meet the needs of Government, by allowing the Attorney-General to refer specific issues for research. The Policy Co-ordination Unit which reports to the Minister for Community Services also provides advice on and promotes the co-ordinated development and review of, policies and programs in the broad field of health and welfare. This recommendation viewed a National Children and Families Commission as not only providing advice but also developing strategies to improve the overall co-ordination in the provision of programs for families and children. The Government recognises the importance of greater co-ordination but considers existing mechanisms such as the Policy Co-ordination Unit, the Conference of Social Welfare Administrators and the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the various committees which are established for specific tasks are providing a valuable service in this respect. Finally, organisations such as the Australian Council of Social Service and the Australian Early Childhood Association, both of which receive financial assistance from the Government, work to assist co-ordination in the field and to give advice to all levels of Government. The Government considers that a National Commission such as that recommended in this Report would have the potential to duplicate functions of existing bodies and conflict with other bodies which have responsibility for specific areas of child and family welfare and it is doubtful whether a Commission could be effective given the scope of its function and the need for it to be involved not only in Commonwealth but also State policies. Senator GRIMES —I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(9.08) —by leave-Mr President, I have supplied a copy of my statement on the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities concerning the implications for Australia's defence to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), and the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp). The statement is available to other honourable senators. I regret that, along with a number of others, I was not here after the usual time of adjournment last night and, therefore, it is necessary for me to make this statement now. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The release of the Dibb Report on the future shape of Australia's defence forces marks a watershed in the development-or disintegration-of Australia's defence and foreign policies. Combined with the economic crisis into which our country has been plunged, the essentially introspective view taken by the Dibb Report of our national security policies has brought us to a point in Australia's history which has profound implications for our national destiny. At such a moment, it is important for us to concentrate on the central principles relating to the defence of Australia and not be diverted by subsidiary issues such as force structure and equipment needs. I also regard questions about strategy as secondary. While strategy determines force structure and equipment requirements, strategy is itself determined by higher consideration. In other words, by how one resolves the question: what interests and positions should we defend in order to provide for Australia's security? We should focus on answering this. This is a question not for defence bureaucrats and academics to decide. It is the business of the Federal Government and Parliament to determine this issue. To set Australia's national defence goals is our primary constitutional responsibility. No-one else is charged with the care of this grave matter. Unfortunately, however, a succession of governments, both Labor and Liberal-National Party, have chosen, in effect, to abdicate responsibility for defence. For all intents and purposes, they have left defence to the Defence Department. The role of Government has been to set the defence budget and that of the Department to generate defence policies tailor-made to fit the budget. Combined with an emerging isolationist instinct among defence bureaucrats, the vice of letting budget policy determine defence policy has been turned into a virtue. How this metamorphosis took place has been explained in the Strategic Basis papers. According to these, Australia is not directly threatened by any power and will not be for the foreseeable future. The upshot of this (though not clearly spelled out, and perhaps deliberately so) is that Australia does not need, for the time being, a defence force which could actually defend us. Such a force would only ever be developed and deployed to meet a direct threat to the continent. To give the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, his due, he is attempting to put his own stamp on the Defence Department and to restore to Government its role in defence planning. But the effect of this has been to give (with the addition of a few personal touches) a more concrete realisation to the Defence Department's incipient policy of undefended neutrality. This is not to say that the Dibb Report is without value. On the contrary, it has merit precisely because it is a systematic and coherent national defence policy, one which begins with a judgment about what we need to defend and ends with a conclusion about the forces needed to do the job. Moreover, the Dibb Report recommends an important development of the Minister's existing policy of welding together the separate services into a more co-ordinated defence force. Nevertheless, the Dibb Report is profoundly influenced by the Defence Department's indifference to Australia's real security problems. One of the grounds for this complacency lies in the conceptually inadequate way in which defence planners and academics have understood Australia's geographic position. According to the alleged experts, Australia's greatest defence asset is its ``strategic isolation''. Because we are so isolated, they tell us, we are hard to attack. Only countries with superpower maritime resources could contemplate invading us. In any case, the argument goes, we could make the passage of invading forces to our shores so expensive that even superpowers would have to think twice about the attempt. So Australia is a pretty safe place to live. It is true that our isolation is an advantage. However, our isolation is at least equally a disadvantage. Some may think that Australia is so geographically remote that the big military problem for an enemy would be getting his forces to us and supplying them. Far from it. Australia is so isolated that an enemy need not send any forces at all. Instead, he can bring military pressure to bear on us more effectively and more economically from afar. The question Australia's geographical position poses for any common-sense enemy is this: why face the risks of invading this far-away country when I stand a good chance of achieving my objectives simply by isolating Australia further, by cutting off, or at least interrupting, the long, slender lines of communications which attach her precariously to the rest of the world? The enemy who asks himself this question is the enemy Australia needs to fear, much more so than the one who would contemplate the costly, impractical plan of invading us. Except as a strategy for the last-ditch defence of the mainland-a strategy which concedes, in advance, the failure of our defence and foreign policies to preserve Australia's security-the Dibb plan is virtually irrelevant to the defence of this country. The reason is this: Australia is a nation whose economic life blood flows through its sea-lane communications with the outside world. Whoever controls those sea-lanes, controls Australia. Thus, any power which wants to subdue Australia would NOT plan to invade us. An enemy could achieve its objectives simply by going for our jugular-the sea-lanes which the Government, through the agency of the Dibb report, is telling us we should not, in principle, defend. With the strategic theory postulated in this report, I have no argument. It is coherent and logical; in itself, it makes sense. The problem is that it is a strategy for some other country, not for Australia. The Dibb strategy is fine for a country with a large population which does not rely on maritime trade. But we are a big country with a small population and we rely on our sea-lanes being safe, not just in the immediate vicinity of our most important harbours, but thousands of miles from our coastline and well beyond the refuelled range of our FA-18s. Dibb makes for interesting reading in strategic theory. But his report is not relevant to the principal defence needs of this country. How could the Minister and his adviser have got it so wrong? The problem is an intellectual blind spot, one which the Dibb Report shares with the Strategic Basis papers, and the Cross Report on The Australian Defence Force. All these documents have been pre-occupied with direct threats to the Australian mainland. All these documents have been concerned to make the obvious point that Australia is not directly threatened and that such a threat is unlikely to mature in circumstances short of a third world war. In this respect, all these documents are painstakingly learned and beside the point. What has been missed in each one of them is a most important issue: that of indirect threats. Indirect threats are potentially the most dangerous because in the history of warfare the indirect approach to dealing with opponents has produced the most clear cut results. In judging its defence needs, a nation which ignores indirect threats does so at its peril. While the Australian mainland is not threatened directly, there are very serious potential threats developing, under the influence of Soviet imperial expansion, against areas vital to Australia's defence. These threats are indirect (in that they threaten Australia's life-supplying lines-of-communication) and are every bit as dangerous for Australia as direct ones. Indeed, they are more dangerous because they are more subtle and easily overlooked. Because Australia depends on the sea-lanes for its economic survival and for military resupply, the areas of greatest strategic importance to Australia are the following: 1. our trades routes to Japan; 2. the Persian Gulf and our sea communications to that area; 3. the narrow waterways between the Pacific and Indian Oceans; 4. the land adjacent to these waters; 5. Australia's sea and air links with the United States. If these waters, or the lands adjacent to them, were controlled by hostile forces-for example, the Soviet Union or its regional clients-and if our resupply routes to the United States could be severed, this would amount to a indirect threat to Australia of strategic proportions. If such a development occurred, the enemy who had this advantage over us would not need to threaten our mainland. In such circumstances Australia could lose its power of self-determination without firing a shot. The inescapable conclusion is that these lands and waters are crucial to the safety and independence of Australia. Our country is geographically isolated from, but economically dependent on, the outside world. We are a nation dangling at the end of long, vulnerable threads which hang from the Asian sub-continent. Cut these and Australia is gravely endangered. To go back, then, to the question I posed at the outset: what must we defend to ensure Australia's security? The answer: our foreign and defence policies must be directed at securing the sea-lanes, particularly where they pass through waters which wash the shores of our South East Asian neighbours. It is another question, of course, whether these areas of paramount defence significance for Australia are being threatened at the moment. Contrary to the benign view taken of our strategic environment by the Dibb Report, the past decade has witnessed a Soviet penetration of our region which is potentially threatening to our most valuable geographic and economic defence interests. It would require much more than another speech to do justice to these developments. But, for the moment, one can at least nominate them: 1. a Soviet lurch toward the Persian Gulf in the form of the Afghanistan invasion; 2. Soviet navel penetration of the Indian Ocean; 3. the development of Soviet bases in Vietnam; 4. the beginnings of Soviet activity in the South-West Pacific, either on its own account or through the agency of clients, such as Cuba, or allies, such as Libya. Other potential threats to our strategic interests come from within the region. One is the situation in the Philippines. It is by no means certain that Mrs Aquino's ``People's Power'' will guarantee the survival of democratic government. It is not certain that Mrs Aquino will induce the NPA to lay down its arms. Nor is it a certainty that, should it refuse, the NPA could be beaten. Another is the way Australia has shot itself in the foot over relations with Indonesia. Our most important sea-lanes pass through the Indonesian archipelago. Moreover, the Indonesian navy is on the way to being the region's most advanced and powerful. The RAN is becoming inferior, in several important respects, to the navy the Indonesians can deploy across our lines-of-communications. Given the attitude of the Defence Department and the present Government toward the Navy, the capacities of the RAN will continue to weaken relative to those of regional naval forces-not that the Indonesians conceive of having to use these against us. The sharp turn for the worse in Australian relations with Indonesia has less to do, I suggest, with our free press and with the alleged unfriendliness of Indonesians, than with the visit by the Minister for Defence to Jakarta. He went there to explain the Dibb Report and it seems he failed. From the Indonesian viewpoint, the Dibb Report looks like an Australian withdrawal from our region. This must suggest to Indonesia that Australia does not care about its ASEAN friends or about the interests they share with Australia. Or Dibb could even suggest to Jakarta that Australia regards Indonesia as its real potential enemy because Dibb's whole preoccupation is with an improbable scenario of raids and other so-called ``credible contingencies'' which could only be mounted from Indonesia. These are reasonable inferences for Indonesia to draw. Consequently, rather than contributing to Australia's security, the Dibb Report creates perceptions of Australia which must isolate us in our region and further weaken our strategic position. The simple answer to our defence problem is not, however, merely the American alliance. Although it is a crucial factor in our defence, we can not rely on the United States as heavily as we have sought to do since World War II. Instead, we need a defence capacity independently to project force deep into our regional waters and adjacent territories. While freedom of action in our own defence demands independently sustainable military forces, we are, nevertheless, not strong enough to provide on our own for the security of our vital interests. This is because our safety depends upon the security of the ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) region through which our chief lines-of-communication pass. Australia needs, therefore, both the friendship of our ASEAN neighbours and the military capacity to act in concert with them to defend the security of the whole region. It would be an act of folly for Australia to leave the defence of its vital interests to others, especially to countries whose defence potential is considerably less than our own and who will see in the Dibb Report an Australia indifferent to the security of those on whom we expect to count. Moreover, it would be absurd to claim, as this Report does, that Australia contributes to regional security by protecting Indonesia's southern flank, when there are no threats to Indonesia from the south, when there are potential threats maturing to the North-West, North, and North-East of the region, and when Australia refuses to do more than take an innocuous intellectual interest in these developments. But the main point I want to make in this speech is that, threat or no threat, it is imperative for us to get clear what lands and waters must be defended to make Australia secure. They lie well outside the 1,000 nautical mile defence zone recommended by the Dibb Report. When we understand this central point, then we can begin to talk intelligently about foreign relations, about strategy, force structure, and equipment. Unless we get the crucial questions right, however, our deliberation about defence will be like the Dibb Report, an academic exercise of considerable value in itself but with little relation to the actual defence problems posed by our geographic situation, economic needs, and regional responsibility. Motion (by Senator Vigor) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an authority to undertake reinsurance business, and for purposes connected therewith. Bill presented by Senator Vigor, and read a first time. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(9.10) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Background Australia is sinking into debt at an escalating rate. For years, we have depended on foreign services, causing a trade deficit in ``invisibles''. We are also depending more and more on imported goods, and going deeper and deeper into debt on our trade in goods. The collapse of world prices for our farm produce, minerals and oil has proved how much we rely on these primary products to balance our books. World trade in invisibles, or services, is doubling every four years, and is now of equal value to half the trade in goods. By the 1990's it is expected to equal the trade in goods. General insurance, with its principle of spreading risks, is a world service trade and probably one of the largest in terms of money flows. Australia's deficit on trade in invisibles is growing, and the associated ebb and flow of capital through our markets is highly disruptive. Purpose This Bill sets up an Authority to manage a local reinsurance market, made attractive through government guarantee, to attract some proportion of this international insurance business to Australia. Currently there are no official international conventions or agreements covering trade in invisibles, it is every one and every country for himself. There are no remedies for damage in international law, no overall standards of business conduct. For these reasons and others, many countries including Japan and the E.E.C. do not allow residents to insure directly on overseas markets. Yet Australians last year doubled their direct placement of insurance overseas, that has doubled Australia's import of insurance cover. The Australian Democrats want a strong local insurance industry, so that Australians don't run the risk of buying cheap insurance abroad. What a crazy thing, to run a risk in insuring a risk! We need to stop loose money floating about and destroying our dollar's value and our financial credibility. I would like to see us move to a system of tying our costs of imports to what we earn from exports, taxing heavily the excess money leaving Australia. We need to introduce investment controls to make sure that money coming into Australia is used to encourage manu- facture and business. We need to develop exports of services, in insurance, banking, communications, information, and tourism. We need to create in Australia a reinsurance market to earn us money in the ``invisibles'' sector of our economy. Invisibles Currently Australia suffers from an increasingly large overseas debt burden, while our trade balance with the rest of the world slumps further and further into deficit. The major portion of this deficit is due to a loss in our invisibles account. The invisibles account includes: insurance, banking services, trade in technology-i.e. patents, royalties, etc., aid, investment income and interest payments, shipping and air freight, travel and tourism, telecommunications and information services, consulting and engineering projects, and education. Typically Australia has had a balance of payments deficit over the past twenty years which has averaged around 3.3 per cent of GDP. The current account deficit has usually resulted from a slight trade surplus more than offset by a net deficit on invisibles. This invisibles deficit has been mainly due to interest and dividends payable on capital borrowed abroad, and to a net deficit on tradeable services such as insurance, banking, transport and travel. I have frequently raised the problem of Australia's increasing national debt. This problem needs to be solved urgently, but the Government seems to be impotent. Less and less of the capital coming into Australia is used for productive investment, more and more is used for financing the increased costs of imports, the refinancing of debt, the take-overs and the sale of Australian assets to foreign interests. I have suggested that a tax on ``moneys'' leaving the country could help to regulate this undesirable and destabilising inflow of foreign capital into Australia. Such a tax would encourage international barter, and would give business an incentive to trade goods for goods rather than goods for money. This would reduce pressure on our dollar. The causes of the deficit on tradeable services are more complex, but would also be decreased as a result of such a tax. Once again, international barter would be encouraged, and our service imports would be paid for by a balancing export of services. We must improve Australia's ability to provide such services by establishing in Australia a credible market for insurance, banking, shipping and travel services. This is the only permanent solution available, and the Australian Democrats are working to make this happen. The world market for services has expanded dramatically in the last decade, yet Australia's share of this trade has decreased. This is against the world trend! The world trade in services is not regulated by official internation agreements, and there is no international protection for Australians who purchase services from overseas. Insurance Like most other invisibles, insurance services are not adequately regulated on international markets. Consequently, information on internation insurance transactions is very difficult to obtain. Since Australia now has no controls on direct insurance business placed abroad, it is similarly very difficult to obtain information on the extent and nature of the transactions, treaties and contracts which are entered into with overseas insurers or underwriters. This has meant that previous governments have put the problem of trade in insurance into the ``too hard basket''. But pressure has been building amongst the Australian owned insurance companies; and the Commonwealth Insurance Office, for better information about what are essentially ``insurance imports''. Pressure is also mounting from these same organisations and from the general public, for better controls on reinsurance and direct insurance overseas. The increasingly aggressive marketing of overseas insurance and the increasing number of cases of problems associated with unscrupulous or unsafe foreign insurance firms has contributed to this perceived need. Insurance can only flourish when people have confidence in it. Bad experiences with insurance reduce public confidence, even if those bad experiences are caused only by unscrupulous foreign companies. The 1984 Report of the Trade Development Council Panel 75 on Invisible Trade makes several recommendations concerning the insurance market in Australia. Need for Reliable Information Its first recommendation is to improve the collection and publication of statistical information on international insurance transactions, and this also has been vehemently requested by the Australian Insurance Commissioner. Large volumes of Australian direct insurance business are placed overseas, something that is not permitted in many of the larger markets of the world such as Japan and the E.E.C.. Australian-owned and controlled companies hold only 33 per cent of the total private enterprise insurance market in Australia, thus the invisibles trade balance is affected even more as the profits and dividends from foreign-owned companies are sent overseas. Australia is a net exporter of insurance risk, that is we are a net importer of insurance contracts on the invisibles account, according to Mr Grahame Bond, President of the Australian Insurance Association. He points out that published statistics are not available to provide a comprehensive picture of Australia's overseas insurance purchases. Some of this business is apparently for insurance of complex or unusual risks for which the Australian market has no tariffs or statistical tables available. However, much of this insurance is ``direct standard risk'' insurance. These contracts which are written overseas may appear to be cheaper, but are not in any way guaranteed and are hence not secure. The only thing worse than no insurance is unreliable or insecure insurance. Australian truckies have found this out to their severe cost. Quite a number of Aussie battlers insured their trucks with an overseas company through a local agent, who did not adequately spell out the extra risks of this type of insurance. The American insurance company in turn, offset its risks by reinsuring with another American company, which eventually defaulted. The original insurer then refused to pay any claims, on the basis that he could not recover his claims from the reinsurer. Many Australian truckies with claims on the American company were sent into bankruptcy as a result. These truck owners had no come-back on their insurer, on the agents, on the brokers or on the underwriters. International Justice Overseas companies are beyond Australian law if they write insurance business overseas, rather than through a local subsidiary. There is a growing trend for more and more of this type of ``insurance'' to be sold through agents in Australia, although many overseas countries outlaw such uncontrollable insurance contracts. The problem of justice, the lack of international remedy for wrongs, is probably the major barrier to international trade. In trade in invisibles, and particularly in the area of insurance, until there are adequate means of international arbitration, and adequate standards of service, Australia cannot afford international free trade in insurance. This very problem of insecurity in international trade can be Australia's opportunity. By offering the same protection and guarantees to its overseas clients as in its locally regulated insurance business, Australia can attract risk insurance to our local market. We foresee that the Australian Reinsurance Market will offer a service to negotiate treaties on behalf of Australian companies wishing to reinsure overseas, and will also offer a service to vet and approve treaties negotiated between bigger registered groups who have registered with the Australian Reinsurance Authority to negotiate their own treaties. In this way, Australia will help to set adequate international standards for the future. Australia will pave the way for negotiating international trade agreements on insurance which give the same protection to people all over the world. Incentives for an Australian Reinsurance Market The second major recommendation of the Trade Development Council Panel 75 on Invisibles Trade was for the Government to look into establishing a reinsurance market in Australia, and to examine the balance of incentives and disincentives for the insurance and reinsurance industry in Australia. Fire Service Levy Currently, stamp duty and fire service fees are levied on international insurance written in Australia as well as on local risks. This increases the cost of insuring in Australia. It makes Australian insurance companies unable to compete in international insurance, so that the balance of insurance is always against Australia-we write Australian insurance overseas, but do not write overseas insurance in Australia. The Trade Development Council Panel 75 reported that in Queensland over 50 per cent of companies are avoiding fire service levies by insuring overseas through their parent companies or directly through overseas insurance companies. This results in a narrowing of the tax base, and places an unfair burden on private people and small Australian businesses. As the per capita fire service levy rises for those who continue to insure locally, the competitiveness of Australian fire insurance is further eroded, and the vicious cycle continues. I recommend that we discontinue the practice of charging fire service levies against insurance, that this service be provided at general community cost, and that the alternative of charging for actual fire service calls be considered. This would encourage people to insure against this extra fire-fighting cost in addition to insuring against the loss or damage of property caused by fire. The same end would be achieved but with the costs falling where they are due. Stamp Duty The practice of charging stamp duties on fin- ancial transactions is more difficult to resolve. These charges fall heavily on the finance industries, particularly banking and insurance services, while transactions involving visible goods are not taxed to the same extent. However, it is important not to introduce more anomalies into the taxation system by starting to allow selective exemptions which distort the decisions of Australian business. Taxation Incentives Reinsurance business is exempt from tax in certain countries, or is taxed at a lower rate. These countries thus gain a cost advantage on international reinsurance markets. Other countries offer the advantage of government guarantee of their reinsurers, and thus also have an international advantage. Merely offering tax incentives to foreign companies to establish locally owned subsidiaries will divert a proportion of their international business through Australia, but this will in no way solve this fundamental problem of acceptable trade practices and standards, nor will it solve the problem of adequate consumer protection and international arbitration. The alternative of taxing moneys leaving the country will achieve the same end, by encouraging these companies to balance their Australian risks insured overseas with overseas risks insured in Australia, thus balancing the business so that no money to be taxed leaves the country. But the second incentive approach brings revenue into the Treasury, whereas tax relief eats into Treasury receipts. While tax incentives could attract more international business through Australia, that business would ebb and flow as other countries counter-offered with even lower tax incentives. Ultimately we would be blackmailed into a discriminatory tax policy, taxing only those transactions from local Australian risks. The price for foreign cash flow would be inordinate, as all the costs would be offset against this tax on local business, while tax relief would be claimed for all overseas trade. The alternative of completely exempting the insurance industry from taxation would create other anomalies of a similar kind. Although the Panel 75 Report recommended that tax concessions be considered for Australian reinsurers, such positive discrimination in favour of one industry would set a precedent for similar tax cuts in other areas, and lead to a yet more complicated taxation system than Australia already suffers. Government Guarantee An equivalent advantage can be provided through Government guarantee, with the added bonus of Australian control and sharing in some of the profits of reinsurance. The Australian Insurance Association Review highlights the alarming imbalance between Australia's visible and invisibles trade account, particularly over the last ten years. One of the major services showing a deficit is the insurance area, although the Australian insurance market is one of the most competitive in the world, according to Mr Grahame Bond, President of the Australian Insurance Association. Overseas the picture is not so rosy. The United States of America is undergoing a crisis in its insurance industry, with exploding premium costs as lawyers win increasing amounts of damages for clients in the courts. The insurance com- panies from the United States have used this as an excuse to put up their premiums world-wide. Australian consumers of insurance are likely to suffer as a result, as American insurers try to make up for deficits in the U.S. business by increasing their profit margins and cash flows abroad. There is also an increased likelihood that more and more underwriters in America will go to the wall, and American insurance companies will fail to pay up. The Bill This Bill sets up a body to be known as the Australian Reinsurance Authority, a corporation to carry on the business of reinsurance in Australia, and to encourage insurers both in Australia and overseas to reinsure their risks with the Australian Reinsurance Authority. The Board of the Authority is to be representative of the insurance industry in Australia. Four of its members are to be directly elected by insurance corporations and underwriters. Another three members of the Board are to be appointed because of their expert knowledge in the field. In addition, the Board will have a Presiding Member, a Deputy Presiding Member, a Managing Director and the Chairman of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Board. The Managing Director is to be appointed by the Board, while the other non-elected Members of the Board apart from the Chairman of EFIC are to be appointed by the Governor-General. The Minister for Finance may fund the Authority out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament, and profits of the Authority will be applied as the Minister sees fit. The Authority will also have the ability to raise funds on its own behalf. These funds may be guaranteed by the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth. Advantages of the Bill If we attract foreign insurance business into Australia because of our reputation for stability, high standards of service and guaranteed security, then we protect our Australian citizens at the same time as we set international standards for insurance business. Another form of protection for our Australian insurance industry which could be considered is to require that a proportion of all reinsurance of risk be done through the Australian Reinsurance Authority. We could consider an invisibles offset program. One advantage of such a requirement would be the opportunity provided to collect information on overseas reinsurance transactions, which currently are not properly monitored. This problem of lack of adequate information about Australian insurance has been raised by the Australian Insurance Commissioner, as well as by the Australian Insurance Association. The same concerns have also been raised internationally by the OECD and GATT, which have asked member nations to collect and assemble information on insurance, and on other invisibles transactions, so that negotiations for freeing up international trade in invisibles can begin. Until this information is reasonably complete, GATT cannot set up workable standards for multi- lateral trade agreements for invisibles, nor can the OECD sponsor more restricted bilateral agreements between OECD member nations under appropriate OECD codes. The Australian Reinsurance Market will provide a control point at which information on insurance can be collected without distortion, and provided in a form useful for government decisions on trade policies. However, this Bill is not intended to set up protective measures for the Australian insurance industry, but merely to enable a local reinsurance market to be established on terms which will make it competitive with other already established world reinsurance markets. Australia's annual net deficit for insurance varies from year to year. In a year of big natural disasters in Australia there may be a net inflow of insurance money into Australia, as it is normal to reinsure such risks in other parts of the world. These anomalies completely hide the constant outflow of premiums overseas. To collect adequate information on insurance business, it is important to collect statistics on gross premiums paid and gross insurance payments received, both for insurance bought abroad and for overseas insurance sold in Australia. The Trade Development Council Panel 75 estimated that Australia's apparent deficit of only $417 million in the balance of insurance payments in 1981/82 in fact represented between $750 million and $1,000 million of total premiums paid abroad in that year, out of a total of $3,500 million of insurance business placed in Australia. Spreading risk beyond country borders is an essential element of insurance. Reinsurance of risk in this way provides security and stability. But the cost of laying off Australia's insurance risk overseas can be more than recouped by establishing a successful reinsurance market in Australia to cover foreign risks. Currently, although there is one significant Australian reinsurer, plus several very small operations, they handle only half as much Australian business as overseas owned companies. The Australian Insurance Association in its 1985 annual report stresses that Australian-owned insurance companies tend to reinsure also with the locally-based reinsurance market. The Australian Reinsurance Authority will not take business away from existing reinsurers, but will provide a service in amalgamating small reinsurance business into larger group treaties. It will provide an opportunity for underwriters in Australia to take on reinsurance risks from overseas, using private consortia of underwriters backed up by a government guarantee. Provided treaties are approved, they will be guaranteed. The Insurance Commissioner, in his 1984/85 Annual Report to Parliament, stated: ``On those occasions when I do review the underlying documentation (of reinsurance arrangements) in many instances it becomes apparent that the treaties are not understood and lack accurate and effective wordings. The experience of general insurance liquidators tends to bear this out also.'' And later on, he reported: ``I continue to receive from time to time notification of reinsurance arrangements that can best be described as artificial contrivances intended merely to reduce premium income as defined in the Act and hence the insurer's required solvency margin.'' He went on to discuss the accounting problems in the area of reinsurance, and the lack of any clear statement of liability of a company to its policyholders, because of the practice of reporting the net liability after deducting the amounts recoverable from reinsurers, and failure to separate amounts payable to reinsurers from amounts recoverable from reinsurers. An Australian reinsurance market, guaranteed by government, trading on Australia's stability and security, with adequate supervision of our terms of contracts and treaties, can attract international insurance business into Australia, and give us the opportunity to offset our large risks overseas on favourable terms of trade. On Wednesday night, we heard Mr Hawke underline Australia's trade difficulties, and our growing balance of payments problems, with remarkable rhetorical flourishes. It was disappointing that there were no real solutions beyond the rhetoric. This Bill is a positive measure, which will be a positive contribution to turning the corner and making our trade position positive, by creating an international reinsurance market in Australia. This Bill, if passed, will bring Australia into a positive balance of trade at least in the insurance area. I entreat the Government to support and implement the proposals as soon as possible, for Australia's sake. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Coates) agreed to: (1) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed any of its Reports, the Committee may send the Reports to the President, or, if the President is unable to act, to the Deputy-President, and, in that event- (a) the Reports shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate; (b) the publication of the Reports is authorised by this Resolution; (c) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, may give directions for the printing and circulation of the Reports; and (d) the President or the Deputy-President, as the case may be, shall lay the Reports upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate. (2) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, insofar as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(9.12) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry and Trade: Certain Aspects of Australia's Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation. My Committee is very concerned about the need for our manufacturing sector to become more internationally competitive and export-oriented. The Committee has been holding discussions with employer and employee representatives who have identified specific concerns and possible lines of inquiry. To simply cover all aspects of manufacturing industry revitalisation would be way beyond the resources of my Committee. It would also duplicate work that has been done or is being done by other organisations. The Committee wants to make a worthwhile contribution to the debate on manufacturing, therefore it is very mindful of the need to formulate appropriate terms of reference. The Committee is considering issues such as competitiveness, investment, development of manufacturing skills, industrial democracy, research and development, marketing and export development, infrastructure support systems and impediments to manufacturing. This list is by no means exhaustive and each issue warrants a major inquiry in its own right. The Committee will continue to discuss these matters with various people and organisations during the recess with the view to identifying and firming up on the most appropriate terms of reference. The Committee will therefore report back to the Senate at the commencement of the Budget session of Parliament on what course or courses of action it will be pursuing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(9.14) —I move: That the following Bills be referred to the following Standing Committees for report on the first day of sitting in August 1986: Standing Committee on Education and the Arts: Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986 Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 Standing Committee on Industry and Trade: Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment: Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986. I think I should explain very briefly the purpose behind this motion. The question of referring more legislation to Senate standing committees has been under discussion now for more than 50 years. I have been feeling around recently for some method of getting this done on a more systematic basis. I think it is universally agreed that Bills that have been referred to committees for public examination have normally been greatly improved thereby. Difficulties and defects that have escaped public servants in the ministerial system have been revealed. I think anyone who has been on one of these committees has been very impressed by the value of the public exposure of a Bill and the public and informed input into its provisions. We have eight legislative and general purpose committees. In the past they have almost exclusively dealt with their general purpose role and they have not properly performed their legislative role. This proposal will remedy that defect. We have a Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which was set up against initial government opposition because governments never like legislation being examined. It is up to this place to decide to examine legislation, not for the government to decide that. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee was set up, after great difficulty and opposition from the then government, but I think no one would now dispute the very great value of the work which that Committee does on its very limited front. This proposal attempts to extend that front to the general structure of a Bill, its purpose and implementation, as well as the narrow legal front under which that Committee operates. One of the objections in the past to referring Bills to a committee has been that it might delay legislation. Therefore, the Bills that are proposed are ones that the Government has said it does not propose to proceed with this session. The reporting date is the first sitting day in August. What will happen in many cases is that the Committee will expose a Bill, find no difficulties with it and will report back to the Senate. Bills will have been publicly exposed, looked at by experts, and the Senate will know there is nothing wrong with them. If serious defects are found and if the Committee wishes to extend its investigations, it will need to get the permission of the Senate to extend its reporting date. Therefore, the future handling of these Bills and any possible delays remain in the hands of the Senate. I have spoken to all of the Opposition and Australian Democrat senators who are members of the relevant committees and all of them are satisfied that it is feasible for the committees to do these investigations and that it would be desirable for them to do so. I have also informed all the Senate chairmen of the various committees and none of them to my mind had cogent objections; they may have different views. It is true that if they did more legislative work, which is supposed to be half of their functions, it would probably delay some of their other general purpose investigations. These are legislative and general purpose committees and this reference would improve the balance, which has been right out of line in the past, and make them do more very desirable legislative work. In any case, I do not think it proper that a Government chairman of a committee should think that he has the power of veto over what Bills should go to a committee. It is up to this place to decide what Bills go to a committee. I recommend my motion accordingly. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.17) —I oppose Senator Hamer's motion. As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, to which Senator Hamer is proposing that two related Bills be referred, I make it clear that it would be virtually impossible for us to consider these two Bills during the coming recess. As I explained to Senator Hamer a day or two ago when he approached me about this matter, we have about five or six urgent reports which we are desperately trying to finish in order to table. I had hoped to table some of them before the end of this period of sittings but that has proved not to be possible. We have not even begun consideration yet of one reference which came from the Opposition at the end of last year because of the pressure of other business. I am not suggesting that it is never appropriate for Bills to be referred to standing committees because in fact the Finance and Government Operations Committee in the last couple of years has dealt with one or two Bills when it has been appropriate, that is, when there has been a real value pointed to in referring particular Bills, because of the particular nature of them or the way they have been dealt with in this chamber. I think Senator Hamer's proposal is inappropriate because there is no particular reason for these Bills to be referred, except for the fact that they are not urgent in terms of the Government's legislative program. He has advanced no particular reason in respect of each Bill. He has made the proposal merely on the basis of it being a good idea that Bills be referred to standing committees. If my Committee was forced to deal with the Bills relating to the Institute of Sport, our consideration of them would have to be very skimpy indeed, because of the pressure of other work. This would bring into disrepute the very idea of standing committees dealing with Bills, as these Bills would have to be dealt with in an inadequate way because of lack of time. Of course I do not suggest that chairs of Senate committees should be in a position to veto references. That has to be a decision in this place. But if we are to have a general proposition to refer Bills to standing committees there ought to be a change in the way that committees operate generally rather than doing this in an ad hoc way. Committees would require more resources, more staff and more time to deal with these sorts of matters properly. Senator Hamer said that he had contacted Opposition and Australian Democrat members of various committees. If he had talked to Opposition members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations he would have found out from them that what I have said is correct. We are trying to finalise five or six matters during the recess. If Senator Hamer had approached Senator Vigor from the Democrats he would have discovered that Senator Vigor had joined the Committee only in the last week and would be only vaguely aware of our program. I suggest that it would be inappropriate to adopt this motion. I oppose it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.22) —The Opposition supports the motion moved by Senator Hamer. I wish to indicate briefly why we do so. In the history of the reference of Bills to committees, Mr President, you would be very hard-pressed to find an example of a Bill being sent to a committee other than with the opposition of government senators. There always seems to be a reason why committee consideration of Bills should not be undertaken. Usually lip service is paid to the fact that it would be desirable if the Senate scrutinised legislation more closely but once one gets down to trying to make a decision it is almost automatic that there be resistance. The whole development of the Senate committee system has tended to be in the face of government resistance. I acknowledge that that resistance has been from governments of my colour as well as those of a Labor persuasion. The most recent institutional change to our committee system occurred when the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills was established over the objections of the then Fraser Government. Those objections which were that it would slow down legislation, prevent the Government getting its program through and so on proved to be unfounded. Senator Coates very properly is concerned about the work load of committees. But in supporting this motion the Opposition says that at least some of the objections which are usually raised cannot be raised. All the Bills which we seek to refer cannot be dealt with by the Senate until August in any event. So there is no question of delay to the Government's program. We believe that the Bills warrant additional examination. Our history of committee examination of Bills has been that in virtually every case worthwhile improvements have been able to be effected. It is my view that at the moment the Senate committee system is not developing. That is a pity. One of the areas with which we should be very anxious to experiment is having more detailed consideration of Bills than is able to be given in the Committee of the Whole. The general principle that we tend to support that the Senate should give legislation careful review can be put to practical test during this recess. It may well be that some committees will report back in a satisfactory and complete way and others in a less satisfactory and less complete way. But it is important that we cease what has been happening over the last two years at least, namely, a total resistance to any real development of the Senate committee system. Our capacity to look at legislation in the Committee of the Whole is less effective than is our capacity to look at it in a committee context. I hope that given that there can be no delay to the Government's program the Senate on this occasion will support what is a very modest proposal from Senator Hamer. It certainly has the strong support of the Opposition. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(9.25) —I oppose Senator Hamer's motion. It is just not good enough that Bills be referred to standing committees in this way. The idea could be of benefit to the Senate in the future, but before we followed such a course the staffing position would have to be completely reviewed. It is impossible to do that at this time. As I see it, the number of committees would have to be increased to at least eight. Members of each committee would have to break up into sub-committees in order to look at legislation. At the moment all committees are working very hard on their particular references. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare hopes to present a report on retirement incomes to the Senate in August. That Committee would have virtually no time-I do not think Senator Hamer has referred anything to that Committee-to deal with another matter by then. The work load of all committees is great, and if we force too much more work on them we will not see value in the reports presented to the Senate. That is an important point. Senator Teague —Your Committee is not referred to. Senator ELSTOB —I realise that. All I am saying is that all committees are in the same position. That is an important point to remember. If it is envisaged that Senate standing committees will look at all legislation, a lot more work has to be done before that happens. We cannot do this in a haphazard way. The staffing position is very important and should be considered by the Senate. To give the committees more work at this time is totally irresponsible. Senator Chaney —Oh God! Senator ELSTOB —Senator Chaney may think that is not so, but I believe that the Senate standing committees do a valuable job for the Senate. It is important that these committees report to Parliament and to the people, and I have always believed that those reports should be first class reports. Reports should not come into this place in a negligent way. It is time the Senate looked at where the committees are going. Maybe the reports are too complicated. We do not have adequate staff. I oppose the motion and I ask honourable senators to think carefully about it. I am not saying that I totally oppose the idea, but to go about it in a haphazard way, off the cuff, is not right. More planning is needed before this can be done. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.29) —I support the concept of the motion with enthusiasm. I say that that enthusiasm is not necessarily shared by all my colleagues. I commend Senator Hamer for the way in which he has pursued this matter for many months now together with his Leader. I must say-I do not want to be unkind-that the enthusiasm shown by senior Liberals to refer matters to committees was not shown by them when they were in government. It is a good thing for oppositions to do, but one has to consider whether the proposal is a good idea overall for the Senate. One must say that, theoretically, contentious Bills should be referred to Senate committees before coming into this Senate so that there is an added watchdog on legislation brought before the Parliament. I agree with Senator Elstob that at present the resources of committees and the time available to them is totally inadequate to do this job in a big way. I see this as an opportunity to test, or to experiment with, Senator Hamer's concept. I do not think any harm will be done by doing this. As Senator Coates and Senator Elstob have said, all the committees are hard working, undermanned and underresourced, and maybe they will not have the time to look at these Bills. As I understand the Hamer motion, if the committees do not have the time to consider them they will simply report back on the first day of sitting in August that they have not had time and no harm will be done. The Government can then proceed with its legislative program. I understood from Senator Hamer-I am not criticising him-that he had received agreement from the various committee chairmen on this concept. That was a simple misunderstanding; possibly it was my fault for misunderstanding him. However, on that basis I reported to my Party and we did have agreement. Apparently my understanding was not correct. Notwithstanding that, for the reason I just said-that is, that if the committees are too busy, if they have too many other things to do and if the amount of resources available to them is not adequate-all they have to do is to report back on the first day of sitting after the recess that they have not had time to consider the reference. Mr President, before I resume my seat may I say that, with all the strength I have, I commend you for the work you have done in trying to get additional resources for committees. You have been outstandingly successful, but you could be still more successful for the committees' sake, as you know. We commend you and ask you to continue your efforts in that regard. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(9.31) —I oppose the proposal put forward by Senator Hamer, which I have certainly looked at very seriously. I have no difficulty with the prospect of examining legislation, but one of my committees has a particular problem that is typical of that experienced by other committees. Two excellent researchers are leaving my committee to go to greener fields and this is a problem that Senate committees have all the time. Mr President, particularly at the moment I would like to see you look at the career structure of researchers because it seems that we train researchers and they are then plundered by other parts of the bureaucracy. That is a real problem. Senator Hamer is proposing a qualitative change of which, in effect, we have been given only a few days notice. For that reason I believe we would be wise not to accede to the motion at this point. We need literally months to adjust to any changes that would occur. I have announced a proposed reference to one of my committees of a very serious and important topic. We are also struggling to complete a series of reports, including a final report on a matter on which we have spent a great deal of time, several years in fact-the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand. For all of these reasons I feel that I must oppose the motion. At this point the proposal would impose an unnecessary strain on my committee. It is something that needs to be examined and planned for more carefully. We need to have a balance in legislation and other references so that we know where we stand. I notice the gung ho approach of the Opposition front bench. The same honourable senators as Ministers have resisted this sort of proposal. I acknowledge that this approach would advantage Oppositions, but it is something that governments want to see the value of before they agree to it. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.34) —I support Senator Hamer's motion. I draw attention to the fact that the Bills which he seeks to refer to committees are not in any way contentious Bills. They have all gone through the House of Representatives with the support of the Opposition parties. They do not raise major areas of policy and therefore will not impose upon the committees major questions of a policy and research nature. I will go through the Bills very briefly. The only issues arising from the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill 1986 appear to be ones of cost and methodology, which have already been looked at in their very initial stages by Estimates Committee D and which could be further investigated. The Australian Institute of Sport Bill 1986 and the Australian Institute of Sport (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1986 relate only to the question of whether the translation of the Australian Institute of Sport from a company limited by guarantee to a statutory authority is the correct way to proceed. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 deals only with the question of the levels of foreign takeover applications requiring the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). The Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Bill 1986 is a technical matter updating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species provisions. The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Amendment Bill 1986 is a technical Bill which simply seeks to bring some greater degree of efficiency into the way in which the action Minister and the Minister responsible for the legislation interact. Therefore, they are not contentious issues. Nevertheless, they are issues which require some scrutiny just to see that the aims of the legislation are in fact being effected by the proposals in the legislation. Certainly, therefore, it will not require any investigation of the policy issues which underlie or underpin the legislation which is being referred to the relevant Committee. As I have said, they are not contentious Bills because all of them have been through the House of Representatives with the support of the Opposition parties. Of course, the Australian Democrats understood the value of this system when their Deputy Leader, Senator Haines, moved the reference of the Opposition's amendment on the Copyright Amendment Bill to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts for investigation. That was a matter which, in fact, raised substantial contentious policy issues. It is interesting that there should be a concern among some of the Australian Democrats that they do not mind referring a Bill which is a highly contentious Bill and which will, in fact, take a degree of examination by the Committee but mind, however, referring the purely technical matters, matters which I would have thought could be dealt with in the course, probably, of only a brief interview with the departmental officers concerned for report back within the same sort of time constraints as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills is able to give to these things. I would have thought that that would have been most advantageous. The only other point I want to make is that because the committees are legislative and general purpose committees they do not appear to do very much by way of a legislative nature in terms of the actual text and terms of the legislation which comes into the Senate and, which I believe, would be properly referred. It is to be remembered that while, for instance, the members of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have to make themselves familiar with certain general principles and then apply them to a whole range of Bills, what we are seeking to do is to take Bills appropriate to a particular committee and let the members of that committee who have already developed some expertise in that particular field bring their expertise to bear on the whole thing. It is perfectly true that governments of our persuasion, as well as Labor governments, have resisted this. Nevertheless, some of us would like to claim a degree of purity on the matter. The Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills was established because I and a number of other then Government back benchers crossed the floor to ensure that the Committee was established. The final point I therefore make is that in every one of these debates one seems to find that Government benches are absolutely populated with a surfeit of Saint Augustines, all of them wishing to be made virtuous, but none of them wishing to be made virtuous just yet. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(9.39) —I would like to say a few words about the motion before us. When Senator Hamer came to see me about this matter I was rather taken aback because I did not know that this proposal was in the wind. I point out that there was no agreement from me on this matter. The conversation went something like this. Senator Hamer said: `We would like to put this Bill before your Committee during the recess to report by the first day of August. We will do so unless you have any major objections'. I replied in words to the effect that I would normally be pleased to take on a reference such as that. However, we have a major inquiry before us as the moment-the education of gifted and talented children. We have scheduled two public hearings on that reference during the recess. On Wednesday night amendments moved by Senator Durack to the Copyright Amendment Bill were referred to the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. We have been given a deadline of 28 August to report on that reference. As well as that, we are trying to finish another report. We have finished the public hearings but we want to write up that report. It deals with a very contentious matter, as honourable senators will see when it comes down early in the Budget session. It relates to certain sporting broadcasts of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. That reference is but one of the examinations of annual reports with which we are proceeding. I cannot see the Committee of which I am Chairman having the resources to take on any further reference between now and when we come back in August. It was difficult enough to find a date when all senators on the Committee could come to a meeting on the reference that was given to us the other night in the Senate. I think it would be almost impossible, now that our diaries have been filled, for us to pick a date for a public hearing on a reference given to us now. I suppose that in principle I am not upset about Bills being referred to this Committee, but the Bill that is proposed to be referred is not a contentious one, as Senator Chipp implied. We were told that this reference would probably require no public hearings, or very few public hearings, and that we would then be able to bring back a report to the Senate. Quite honestly, I cannot see much point in going through that sort of exercise. If it were a contentious Bill-one on which the Senate wanted advice-there would be some justification for its being referred to the Committee, just as there was justification in giving us that reference the other night so that we can bring down a report on what was regarded as a fairly contentious piece of proposed legislation. If we are going to go down this road, we should make a decision to do so; then the Senate committees would be able to schedule their activities in such a way that they can take on these references. But this is not the time to look at a reference that is made on the spot because we have a lot of references before us. Senator JONES(Queensland)(9.43) —I am opposed to the reference of legislation to the Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment of which I am Chairman. Senator Chaney —You would support it if you had had a nice early night. Senator JONES —I do not think I really did but we can deal with that later. The reason I am opposed to the motion is that it is an ad hoc way of making references to a committee. We have to look at the fact that the Committee has planned what will happen in the recess. It has planned its program. We also have to take into consideration the other activities of honourable senators in the recess and the demands of the other committees to which they belong. We had to try to set Committee meeting dates to suit those members of the Committee. I believe that on Monday our Committee is travelling to Mount Isa for a hearing and an inspection in relation to a reference that is before us. We are also in the process of finalising a report on a reference before the Committee. I think one has to take into consideration the amount of work being put in by the staff or the people who are attached to our Committee. When one plans what will happen with regard to a reference or a reference that is to be taken up by a committee or what will happen in the recess, one has to take into consideration the amount of work that honourable senators have, the other committees to which they are attached and the amount of work being undertaken by the staff attached to the committee. While I have no great argument with the principle of legislation being moved to the Committee, to do it in this way will certainly put a large load on the Committee, a load that will not allow the Committee to carry out any reference to it in such a way that would be of any value to the Senate. The Committee has a planned program for the recess which will put a fair burden on the staff attached to the Committee, and it would be quite unfair to those staff, unless the resources were increased, to take further references at this stage. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(9.46) —in reply-This matter has been the subject of debate and discussion in the Senate for over 50 years. Every time a reference is proposed, we get the same sorts of objections: `Yes, but not yet; a good idea, but we will do it at some time in the unspecified future'. What is proposed here is in the nature of an experiment. None of these Bills is likely to cause a large work load on the committees. We are looking for a better balance between the legislative function and the general purpose function of these committees. The committees have resources which they have allocated at their whim entirely on general purpose activities. It is proposed that they should take on a modest legislative examination activity so that we can see what happened. I would say for certain that the exposure of these Bills to public examination will reveal unexpected flaws. It is to the benefit of the Senate that that should be done. It is to the benefit of the Government that that should be done. I commend the motion to the Senate. Question put: That the motion (Senator Hamer's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 1 —— Alston, R. K. R. Messner, A. J. Archer, B. R. Newman, J. M. Baume, Michael Parer, W. R. Baume, Peter Puplick, C. J. G. Bjelke-Peterson, F. I. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Brownhill, D. G. C. Sheil, G. Chipp, D. L. Short, J. R. Collard, S. J. Siddons, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Hill, R. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Harradine, B. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Ray, Robert. Cook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M. Cooney, B. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan, S. M. Devlin, R. Sanders, N. K. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Foreman, D. J. Tate, M. C. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. Grimes, D. J. Kilgariff, B. F. Gietzelt, A. T. MacGibbon, D. J. Morris, J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Richardson, G. F. Carrick, Sir John Evans, GarethChaney, F. M. Button, J. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(9.52) —I move: That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations: The procedures of the Commissioner of Taxation and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, with particular reference to- (a) raising and amending assessments; (b) the imposition of penalties and interest; and (c) systems of dealing with objections and appeals against them, and to recommend changes to present taxation systems in order to streamline and simplify them and to safeguard the rights of taxpayers. I have discussed the motion with both the Australian Democrats and Senator Coates, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. Certainly the present work load of the Committee would not enable it to undertake an immediate inquiry on this matter, but I think Senator Coates will be indicating that we will discuss this matter again in the Budget sitting. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(9.54) —I will take up only a moment of the Senate's time in order to say that, as explained in the previous motion, the work load of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is very heavy at present. I do not want to have on the Committee's list of references a matter which cannot be dealt with but which has been referred to it in June. It would look as though the Committee were slack if it had not dealt with that matter after a few months. After seeking leave to continue my remarks, I intend to move that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for 17 September 1986. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Senator COATES —I move: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for 17 September 1986. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business)(9.55) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) The hours of sitting of the Senate on Friday, 13 June 1986, be varied as follows: 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m. (2) The Senate meet on Saturday, 14 June 1986 and that- (a) the hours of sitting for that day be as follows: 9 a.m.-12.45 p.m. 2 p.m.-6.30 p.m. 8 p.m.-10.30 p.m.; and (b) the Order of Business for that day be as follows: (i) Petitions (ii) Notices of Motion (iii) Ministerial Statements (iv) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (v) Government Business as set down on the Notice Paper. A motion of this type has been moved by the Manager of Government Business or the Leader of the Government in the Senate on every occasion at the end of a session since I have been there. The reason is simple-we may need that time to complete the legislation. We see no reason why we should not complete it in the next day or two. I will not bore the Senate with a long and heart-rending speech on why the motion should be passed; I merely urge the Senate to support it. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.56) —The Opposition will oppose this motion. I move the following amendment: Leave out Order of Business in paragraph (2) (b), insert the following order of business- (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business, Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper The reason for the Opposition opposing this motion is that we regard the further extension of the current three-week period of sittings as being quite unreasonable on the notice which has been given by the Government. A couple of weeks ago we sat down with the Government and agreed to extensions to the then arranged sitting hours and arranged to sit in the evenings and on appropriate mornings. Indeed, we had a five-day week last week. This was done because the Government had a very considerable amount of business, including a very substantial volume of taxation legislation to deal with. We are now in the position where senators have made their arrangements on the basis of the sitting arrangements made some weeks ago. I think it is unreasonable to expect a total rearrangement at this very late hour. I would like to make it quite clear on behalf of the Opposition that the Opposition has now, as in the past, indicated that it will, of course, in general sit whenever the Government requires legislation to be dealt with. However, we have taken the view that more than three weeks in a row of sittings is thoroughly undesirable for reasons of health and, indeed, I think for reasons of rational examination of the issues which face the Senate. I would like to make it quite clear that the Opposition has taken the view that, if the Government has a program which it must get through before the winter recess, the Opposition, whilst insisting insofar as we can that we have an up week next week, would be prepared to come back on the following week. We do not seek that, but we are-- Senator Coleman —Oh, rubbish. That is rubbish and you know it. Senator CHANEY —I am getting great assis-tance. On the reading I have made of unparliamentary language over the last 10 hours, I suspect that comment is unparliamentary. Senator Coleman —No, that is not so. You are all ready to catch your flights. The PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Coleman! Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I am being chided by Senator Coleman on the basis that senators have suitcases downstairs for the afternoon flights. In fact, I am leaving tomorrow so it is no skin off my nose. The point I made was that senators have made their arrangements on the basis of what the Government laid down two weeks ago, and both Government and Opposition senators have arranged to leave Canberra this afternoon. I make no secret of that. I am asserting that they are perfectly entitled to do that because that is the arrangement the Government laid down. I do not want to prolong the debate because I think it is important that we get on with the business which we have to deal with before this Parliament rises. Nevertheless, I think that senators are entitled to have some predictability in their lives. They are entitled not to have the sittings of the Senate prolonged to a point where it is damaging to health and to sanity. I think we would be better to maintain the arrangements which were entered into some weeks ago. For those reasons, the Opposition will be voting against this motion. We have moved this amendment so that if the motion is carried we will confirm the principle that, again, the Opposition has always put forward; that is, that if the Senate is sitting it is not right for the Government to put down an order which precludes the Opposition, independent senators and Australian Democrat senators from exercising their normal rights as senators and from having the access which the Opposition traditionally has to a part of the parliamentary day. Were we to sit tomorrow I think it is likely that people might want to do something other than mount a matter of public importance or an urgency motion. Senator Macklin —You can bet on that. Senator CHANEY —I think that is probably right. Senator Chipp —You would mount an MPI on a Sunday. Senator CHANEY —I might mount one this afternoon if the honourable senator keeps this up. The position is that the Opposition believes that it is an important matter of principle that should go beyond the irritation of the moment. It is an important point of principle that we should not deprive members of the Opposition, independents and Democrat senators of that part of the program which is reserved for them for very good reasons. For that reason, I hope there will be support for the amendment. I hope also that there will be support for opposing this motion. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Chaney's amendment) be left out. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. Chaney, F. M. Sheil, G. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Short, J. R. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C. Durack, P. D. Townley, M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vanstone, A. E. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Harradine, B. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Knowles, S. C. Aulich, T. Grimes, D. J. Black, J. R. Jones, G. N. Bolkus, N. McClelland, DouglasButton, J. N. McKiernan, J. P. Childs, B. K. Macklin, M. J. Chipp, D. L. Maguire, G. R. Coates, J. Ray, RobertColeman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Colston, M. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Cook, P. F. S. Ryan, S. M. Cooney, B. Sanders, N. K. Crowley, R. A. Sibraa, K. W. Devlin, R. Siddons, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Foreman, D. J. Vigor, D. B. Georges, G. Walsh, P. A. Giles, P. J. Zakharov, A. O. MacGibbon, D. J. Gietzelt, A. T. Kilgariff, B. F. Morris, J. Jessop, D. S. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. Richardson, G. F. Carrick, Sir John Evans, Gareth Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed 11 June, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Manager of Government Business) —I suggest that it may be convenient for the Senate if the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986 are debated cognately. The PRESIDENT —There being no objection, that course will be followed. Senator COLLARD(Queensland-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.08) —We are debating cognately the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986, but I wish to speak briefly to the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill and the tobacco Bills. My colleague Senator Brownhill will speak on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill and the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill and Senator Crichton-Browne will speak on the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. The fertiliser Bill continues the subsidy on nitrogenous and phosphate fertilisers at the current rate. This subsidy was due to expire on 30 June 1986. I point out that this Bill was brought in after the cut-off date of 30 May, a move which the Australian Democrats instigated and the Opposition supported. However, through Government inefficiency, this Bill was not brought in in time. I must say that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, gave notice of it in his economic and rural policy statement of 15 April. I suppose that we are in times of confession when it comes to Bills that concern us individually and, once again, I must declare a self-interest in this Bill as I would ultimately be a recipient of the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy in particular and, to a lesser extent, the phosphate subsidy. I also point out that I was responsible for putting the dairy Bills through the other night which imposed a levy. So with these two lots of Bills I am still down the drain. The subsidy which I will get will in no way make up for the levy which I will have to pay because of the dairy Bills. I point out that the tobacco Bills are necessary only because of a Government blunder. The Rural Industries Research Act 1985 negated the levies in the original 1955 Act. The Government, by regulation, had to declare the new levies before 1 April 1986, and it did not do so. Because of its inefficiency or because of a blunder or something else it had to bring in these new Bills to enable the levies to be declared. As I have indicated, the Opposition will be supporting all the Bills. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales)(10.12) —As Senator Collard, Leader of the National Party of Australia, has already said, the Opposition will be supporting the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986. These Bills are two of a series of Bills that will make significant reforms to the administration of the wheat and meat industries and the statutory marketing authorities of other farm industries. Of course, at this stage the Federal Government is continuing the good work which was first started by the previous Government to enable government business undertakings to operate in a more commercial manner. I believe that the question of accountability is essential to any business operation, whether it be private enterprise or a government department or business. I am pleased that the present Federal Government also appears to accept the concept of accountability. I do need to remind the Senate of the very significant role that the wheat industry has played and will continue to play in the economic development of this country. Wheat is one of our major exports in spite of the crippling government policies which have not only affected rural Australia but also set Australia on a disastrous path to economic ruin. There can be no argument that rural industry and, more particularly wheat growers, are in severe financial difficulties. Of course, that is only the start as things will get a lot worse. The Government's own Bureau of Agricultural Economics has predicted that the real net value of rural production is likely to decline by about 40 per cent in the two years to June 1987. The average farm cash operating surplus is forecast to fall to $20,000. In 1983-84 this figure was $29,000. Average farm incomes on family farms are expected to fall to $7,000, and this figure was up around $23,000 in 1983-84. The proportion of farms assessed by the BAE as being at risk-that is, those that have negative cash margins and less than 70 per cent equity-is likely to rise to 7 per cent. In 1984-85 this figure was only 5 per cent. The rural community is under a great deal of stress and strain at the moment. This figure of 5 per cent might seem very small but it means that some 12,000 farm businesses are in real trouble. These figures are not something that have been dreamt up by farmers' organisations; they come from the Government's own department and fly in the face of constant denials in this chamber by the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) who would have us believe that there is no farm crisis. More significantly perhaps than those figures is the fact that the worst affected industry is wheat-the rural crop that provides a significant part of our export earnings. Twelve months ago the average debt across all farms was some $67,000. For the wheat industry it was $124,000. However, within that industry, 25 per cent of growers had debts greater than $155,000. That was 12 months ago. Since then expected returns from agriculture have slumped still further. Since June last year there has been an estimated fall in rural returns of 31 per cent; the estimated fall for this year is 18 per cent. Acknowledging the appalling state of agriculture and the problems it has, I support any actions by this Government that will help the industry, no matter how small they are. The Australian Wheat Board has not had an easy time in its attempts to sell Australian wheat. The fact that it has made very important sales into new areas such as Pakistan and Colombia is to be applauded. Recent news that the United States of America has moved into the Arab Republic of North Yemen, which up till now has generally been regarded as Australia's traditional market, should be of great concern to all people in the Australian community, not just wheat growers. I do not believe that this sale of cheap American wheat will be an isolated instance. I do not share the confidence of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the assurances he was given recently in the United States when he expressed concerned over the United States farm Bill. The United States farm Bill is a major worry for Australia, and the fact that America has just sold 50,000 tonnes of wheat at a discounted price to one of our traditional markets supports that concern. An article by John Stanton in today's Australian quotes Mr Clinton Condon as saying, on his return from a trip abroad, that Australian wheat exports will fall by some $640m in this coming year and that in the last three months the price of wheat has fallen by $US30 per tonne. The wheat growers of Australia obviously are going to be under a lot more stress and strain than even that I have instanced in the last minute or so. The article quotes Mr Condon as saying: The European farmer has a cozy little nest and the US farmer is deeply in debt. Neither of them want their governments to stop subsidising their production and neither government is about to suddenly turn off the subsidy tap. Australian farmers are having to compete with those people all the time. This legislation is unlikely to assist in solving the problems we have with the protectionist policies of these countries; but, provisions that will allow the Wheat Board to establish or become involved in subsidiary companies perhaps will enable Australia to improve still further its marketing skills to combat unfair competition. The legislation will also enforce more accountability by the Board to its growers, by requesting that it meet at least annually with the Executive of the Australian Wheat Growers Federation. This, too, can only be good for the industry and those involved in it. The reforms to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are similar to those to the Australian Wheat Board. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill will provide more autonomy to the Corporation in the lending of its reserves. Accountability to the industry will be maintained through annual plans and three- to five-year corporate plans. Both bodies will be subject to a reserve power of direction from the Minister. Both bodies will be allowed to appoint outside auditors instead of the Auditor-General. The Opposition supports the safeguards written into these Bills, which include the option for the Auditor-General to intervene, if necessary, but at the Government's expense. As I said earlier, these Bills are only two of a number of similar Bills to apply to a range of farm industries. I think they are a step in the right direction. I wish, however, that the Government could be equally as progressive with its economic policies because, frankly, there will be no point in statutory marketing authorities such as the Wheat Board or the AMLC becoming more accountable to their respective industries if there are no industries to account to. This Government will eliminate the wheat and meat industries-indeed, all rural industries-unless it takes heed of the economic problems that now beset this great country of ours. I support what Senator Collard said in support of the Bills and I commend them to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(10.19) —The Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986 relate to various areas of primary industry. The Australian Democrats support these Bills. The only comment I wish to make is with regard to the three-year extension of the fertiliser subsidy. I believe that this is an area in which we need more imaginative policies. Fairly obviously, the extension for three years is welcome, but it does not come to grips with the overall problem. It certainly looks as though it is simply another holding operation, because the decisions that need to be taken are probably too difficult to take in the current climate. We hope that the subsequent work the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is doing and undoubtedly is doing with Senator Button in his area, and the legislation which we have discussed in this place within the last couple of weeks, will give the Government wider powers with regard to operating in this area. I hope, however, that we will soon see from the Government a decision rather than the non-decision which basically is contained in the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986. The Australian Democrats support all of this legislation. The legislation has the support of the relevant industry bases and in discussions with them each of those relevant industries indicated that support. Therefore, we wish these Bills a speedy passage. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(10.20) —We are dealing cognately with the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986. I would like to refer particularly to the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill. It is designed to make certain reforms to the operation of the Australian Wheat Board and to make certain amendments to the Rural Industries Research Act 1985. With the indulgence of the Senate, I would like to make some brief comments about the wheat industry in Australia. Whilst the changes the Government intends to make to the Australian Wheat Board, which are designed to make it operate with a more commercial outlook, are certainly commendable, they represent only a fraction of what this Government needs to do for the wheat industry generally. This Government has stood idly by while its policies have contributed to a malaise amongst Australian wheat farmers, which is even worse than that of farmers in general. Agriculture has suffered under this Government perhaps more than any other government in recent history, and the sector which has been hit the worst has been the Australian wheat farmers. With the possible exception of the rice industry, the wheat industry is the most debt ridden farming sector in the nation. In 1984-85, one in four wheat farmers was in debt in excess of $155,000, and one in eight farmers owed more than $268,000. Senator Button —How much of that is attributable to the stupid policies of Liberal governments in Western Australia? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Senator Button would like to articulate in precise terms what he refers to as stupid policies of the Government of Western Australia, I would be happy to debate it. The only comment I make is that there is a Labor government there, which has been in office for over three years, and I just wonder when the time arrives when it is no longer relevant for the sins of the previous Government to be referred to as being visited upon the industry. Senator Button —As here, so there; the same thing applies. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Absolutely. The present Government has been in power now for more than three years. The levels of inflation, of interest rates and of unemployment, the continuing levels of protection and the continuing level of foreign debt are matters which must be visited upon the present Government and not the previous Government. If we are going to talk about the previous Government, as Senator Button did yesterday in Question Time, perhaps we ought to talk about the Whitlam Government. Senator Button talked about unemployment going up 16 per cent in one year. Has Senator Button forgotten about the level of unemployment in 1973-74 under Mr Whitlam? Perhaps we ought to stay within the realms of relevancy in terms of the timeframe allowed to debate this legislation. As I was saying, one in eight wheat farmers has a debt of more than $268,000. Inevitably, it is the wheat farmers who suffer more than other sectors of the rural economy as a result of this Government's high interest rate policies. Even now, with interest rates having fallen marginally, the rates which Australian farmers have to pay for finance are hopelessly uncompetitive when compared with the rates paid by our wheat producing competitors. Yesterday the Westpac Banking Corporation quoted an interest rate of 17.5 per cent on overdrafts, regardless of the size of the overdraft. If, as is normally the case, the farmer wants a loan for a greater period the interest rate will increase. For finance over five years Westpac advises that an additional interest rate of between one and 3 per cent can be added to the overdraft figures. Just how much the premium will be ultimately will depend on the bank's assessment of the risk of the client. So the greater the risk the higher the interest rate; the greater the difficulty the farmer is in the greater the difficulty of refinancing and trading his way out. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics considers that in 1985-86 in Western Australia one in five wheat farmers is at risk. It seems reasonable to assume that many farmers will be paying around 20 per cent for long term finance from traditional banks. If that is not bad enough, we should pity the poor farmers who cannot obtain loans from banks and are forced to obtain finance from finance companies. For finance negotiated on a seasonal payment basis the Australian Guarantee Corporation, for instance, advises that it charges 22 per cent for finance for the purchase of new goods. An almost unbelievable 25 per cent is charged for second-hand goods. These interest rates mean that many farmers with debts of $100,000 are paying about $20,000 per year, or $400 a week, just in interest repayments. Considering that interest rates charged in countries which are our major trading partners, our major competitors, are more in the range of 12 per cent, the competitive disadvantage which faces farmers, thanks to the policy of this Government, becomes starkly obvious. This Government, which has been in office now for more than three years, has failed to address the issue of domestic costs. Of the many examples I could mention, because of time I will discuss only two. In 1982-83 the average cost to the wheat industry of bulk handling authorities in each State was $12.77 per tonne of wheat. In 1985-86 the BAE projects that this cost will be $16 a tonne. The average annual increase over the three years is 8.4 per cent. The average real freight charged in 1982-83 was $13.83 per tonne. In 1985-86 this has increased to $19.10 per tonne. The average annual increase over three years in this case was 12.7 per cent. If these figures are not alarming enough by themselves, when it is considered that the inflation rate in the European Economic Community in 1985 was 5.5 per cent and in the United States of America 3.5 per cent, it becomes very obvious that Australian farmers are being made less and less competitive, or more and more uncompetitive. Not only are Australian freight rates more expensive than those in the United States and Canada but also our freight rate charges are increasing at a greater rate than those of our competitors. Rising costs and high interest rates have absolutely decimated wheat farmers' incomes. On average, on BAE figures, wheat farmers are expected to lose this year $7,500. The average income of the average wheat farmer is minus $7,500 a year, and many farmers will be losing a great deal more. What is really frightening for the entire rural community, and for wheat farmers in particular, is that the industry is in a malaise while seasons have been relatively good. In 1983 there were record sowings of wheat. Almost 13 million hectares of wheat were planted in that year. That was a good season. The 1985-86 season had the fifth highest level of plantings on record. If reasonable seasons have occurred and the industry is still in the doldrums, how many wheat farmers will be driven off their land if this year we are again stricken by drought? In my view this potential catastrophe could already be on the way. Although, thankfully, Western Australia has received adequate rainfall in recent months, much of the eastern States has not received normal rainfall. Should this continue yields will fall. The situation confronting wheat farmers at present will pale into utter insignificance compared with the combination of high debts, high interest rates and drought. As Senator Button would know better than most, the prognosis for this season is poor. The symptoms of a drought are already with us. Levels of rainfall are considerably below average. Projections are that they will not improve. This year we may well find that we are in the grip of another major drought. It has become fashionable recently to say that farmers just have to accept their plight, that there is nothing governments can do about the difficulties associated with world oversupply of agricultural products. Recently in a 60 Minutes television program I managed to see Dr David Clarke, an academic from the University of New South Wales. As one would expect, he indicated that farmers ought not consider that the taxpayer has to pick up the costs of enabling Australian farmers to stay on their farms despite world agricultural market problems. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin, has also indicated that in his view farmers are being unrealistic in the grievances they have brought to the Government. Displaying a total lack of understanding of farmers complaints, with his cavalier attitude to their economic well-being, he said at the New South Wales Labor Party Conference that if farmers choose certain lifestyles with attendant risks they can hardly complain about the consequences. That is not the view of a sensitive, understanding, not to say caring, Minister. The Minister either does not understand the problem or simply does not care about the problems of the rural sector. The essential point that Mr Kerin and Dr Clarke miss is that farmers regard themselves as businessmen who have to produce their commodities at competitive prices. They are not asking the Government to treat them differently from other people. They are not asking for an entitlement to live off the taxpayer. Farmers are saying that the policies being pursued by this Government are making it harder and harder for them to compete in an already fierce world market. To use the most recent example, Mr Kerin can hardly blame the agricultural policies of the EEC or the United States for the reduction in farm income caused by the fringe benefits tax. This Hawke Government-inflicted measure will cost farmers $1,760 per year if they provide an employee with accommodation and that employee does not contribute to the rent on that property. That tax will apply even to the average wheat farmer who already has a negative income this year of $7,500. We can increase that negative income of $7,500 by $1,760 if the farmer provides a cottage rent free to his employee to attract him as part of a package which makes it possible for the farmer to employ somebody. The fact that this Government will be supporting a 3 per cent productivity increase and a national wage increase which is expected to be of the order of 2.3 per cent is another example of rural problems being compounded by this Government. These are the fundamental issues which this Government must deal with to enable the successful marketing of Australian wheat. As I said from the outset, changes to the Australian Wheat Board to enable it to operate more effectively are welcome, but if wheat farmers are facing domestic costs which will make them more competitive it does not matter how many changes are made to the Wheat Board, the plight of the Australian wheat farmer can only worsen. I would like to look at a number of overseas aspects of the marketing of Australian wheat. Regardless of claims by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) following his recent visit to the United States, reports of sales of 50,000 tonnes of United States wheat to North Yemen, which was referred to by Senator Brownhill earlier, clearly indicate that the United States does not regard Australian markets as being in some way exempt from the effects of its rural subsidisation policies. The Prime Minister came back glowing, bloated and euphoric about the consultations he had had with the President of the United States, saying that the United States Administration now understood the problems of the Australian rural economy and that we in no way would be affected by its policies. Already, half of our normal rice export market in Papua New Guinea has been undermined by the United States selling its rice at half our price. That loss has cost us about $20m. Also, as I said, 50,000 tonnes of United States wheat has been sold to North Yemen, which is a traditional Australian market. There are indications that we will lose other markets as a result of United States Administration policy. Yet the Prime Minister got off the aeroplane and said that our problems had been solved, that the panacea was at hand, and that the rural economy need no longer worry about United States rural policy. It may well be that Australia must apply more effort to finding new markets. The Australian Wheat Board has indicated that the growing markets for our wheat are in the Middle East, Asia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I agree with that 100 per cent. In the early 1970s these markets took 50 per cent of Australian wheat exports; they now take 80 per cent. There is great scope for increasing Australian wheat exports to the Asian region. China, as the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, would know, is one such example which springs immediately to mind. Senator Button —You are joking. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We provide China with two million tonnes of wheat annually and it imports seven million tonnes of wheat. The Wheat Board takes the view that that is a market into which we can make further inroads. At the same time, it ought to be recognised that only last year a Chinese wheat mission was in Egypt trying to sell wheat. As Senator Button's advisers, whom he is now consulting, will tell him, it is anticipated that by the turn of the century China will be a net exporter of food. There are many other countries in Asia which could, in my view, be a market for Australian wheat. Bangladesh, for instance, imports 2,000 kilotonnes of wheat and flour. Of this amount, Australia supplies only 262 kilotonnes. Australia supplies only 528 kilotonnes of the 1,400 kilotonnes of wheat imported by Indonesia. With the present relationship between Australia and Indonesia, I wonder what has happened to that very fragile market. I would have thought that, with the freight advantage we have and with what used to be close ties with our South East Asia region neighbour, Indonesia should have been a market for us which had the potential of being substantially increased. We supply less than half of its present import needs. The USSR is another market with potential for more Australian wheat sales. It is a consumer, but it is one of the few importing countries which will not be permitted to benefit from the United States export enhancement program. Last year the USSR, as I recall-I will stand corrected, but I am certain I am right-took record sales from us. Last year it was our biggest single market. But it is a very volatile market. The year before it took less than half that figure. It certainly is a market which we ought to be cultivating and working hard to expand. To capitalise on any of these opportunities which become available we need to come back to the fundamental issue; that is, being competitive so that wheat farmers can sell their products at the low world prices which are presently prevailing but still manage to show a profit. In the Asian region this competition will be particularly fierce because Australian wheat producers will have to compete not only with the exports of other countries but also, in many instances, with the growing domestic production of wheat by those countries. As I said last night, there is a very real glut in wheat which is likely to continue and increase. For instance, in 1965-66 India produced only 12 million tonnes of wheat; in 1986-87 it is producing 46 million tonnes and is now the fifth largest producer of wheat in the world. The interesting thing about India is that 20 years ago 80 per cent of its total production was lost to insects, rats and mice. Only 20 per cent was consumed ultimately by the people of India. They are simple matters, but the sophistication of its transport and the adequacy of its storage facilities are such now that its on-ground losses are in the region of 20 per cent. India last year had, I think, 26 million tonnes stockpiled. It is now in a position to export wheat from time to time. China has performed similarly. In 1966 it produced 26 million tonnes of wheat. It is now producing 88 million tonnes and is the world's largest wheat producer. In addition to the continual need to be competitive for the future successful marketing of Australian wheat, Australia will undoubtedly need to look at opening more of its markets to imports of Asian-produced goods. This is something which I am quite sure Senator Button is very well aware of. This is because in addition to the normal dislike which countries display for running enormous trade imbalances with other countries there is a growing reliance on counter-trade by Asian countries. Australia will have to take greater notice of that fact. In its simplest form, counter-trade involves the bartering of one product for another rather than settling in foreign currency. This practice is particularly popular in developing countries because of their frequent shortage of foreign currency. The Australian Wheat Board's senior marketing manager, Mr R. J. Storey, has indicated that, although counter-trading was almost insignificant or of little importance only two years ago, today its use is becoming widespread. Australia has already sold large quantities of wheat to Pakistan in return for Pakistan's cotton and fertilisers. This form of trade is already popular with China. As many of the countries in Asia experience foreign currency shortages, it is reasonable to predict that counter-trade will become an increasingly popular form of trade in our Asian markets. Australia may well have to look to further liberalisation of its trade laws so it can take more Asian products and in return sell more of its own goods, such as wheat. The final matter I would like to raise relates to the research aspects of the Bill before the Senate. In a paper presented to a grower seminar in Western Australia conducted by the Australian Wheat Board, the Board's senior wheat quality chemist, Mr P. G. Downie, stated: It can be categorically stated that there is overwhelming evidence that markets are becoming more `quality' conscious, and the `quality' is going to play a continuing role in the marketing of Australian wheat. This is especially true in the areas of the world where wheat consumption is increasing, that is South East Asia and the Middle East. Inevitably such a trend in Australia's wheat markets will place extra emphasis on the Australian wheat research effort. In view of this fact it is particularly disappointing to me, to the Opposition, to the wheat industry in general and to the rural economy in general that the Government has not proceeded with the introduction of some form of plant variety rights in Australia. I support this legislation. As I have said, I regret that we do not have plant variety rights. Australia has typically relied on a high proportion of research being carried out in the State departments of agriculture and the universities. In a report on Australia's plant breeding needs Professor Alec Lazenby indicated that nearly half of Australia's professional plant breeders are located in State agriculture departments with one-fifth in the universities. Only 12 per cent of the resources available for plant breeding are in private industry. Professor Lazenby was particularly critical of the haphazard way research was taking place across the country. He criticised State agriculture departments for lack of co-ordination. In many cases he found several State departments pursuing the same type of research independently rather than making more effective use of resources by combining their efforts. Professor Lazenby was critical of the lack of private sector research in many areas of plant breeding. He also stated: Amongst the excellent reasons which I believe exist for encouraging the private sector investment in crop improvement in Australia, the introduction of an element of healthy competition to the public sector activities is one of the most significant. Professor Lazenby ultimately concluded that Australia would benefit more than it would lose with the introduction of plant variety rights. If such a system of rights were introduced into Australia I believe that it would stimulate private sector research far more than the Government could hope to do by its own continuing errors. In this way I believe that the Australian agricultural industry and wheat, in particular, would be more capable of adapting to changing world market demands. As I said last night, while I accept that many of the problems facing the rural economy are outside the scope, the capacity, the competence, the ability and the framework of government policy there are many matters on which this Government ought be properly dwelling to ensure that in times of depressed market prices, in times of oversupply, we will at least be competitive so that we will be able to compete on world markets. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.48) —in reply- I thank honourable senators for their warm and generous support of the Fertilizers (Subsidy) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 1) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 2) Amendment Bill 1986, the Tobacco Charge (No. 3) Amendment Bill 1986, the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 and the Wheat Marketing Amendment Bill 1986 and their kind comments about the Government. I refer particularly to Senator Crichton-Browne who excelled himself today; he is usually much worse. This Bill and the associated Bills are important, and I commend them to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 27 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or requests, or debate. Consideration resumed from 6 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Consideration resumed from 7 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.54) —The Senate is debating the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to replace the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 and provide a new basis for continued Commonwealth assistance to local governments. Firstly, I start off by making it clear that I am a very strong supporter of local government. I believe that any form of government which is very close to the people is the best form of government and clearly local government is best on that basis. I give an example of the sort of thing we have not yet been able to take advantage of in this country, and I think that is a great pity. One of the worst crises for a family with young children is the death of a mother. Mothers seem to be able to cope with the loss of a breadwinner father, but working fathers are placed in a desperate situation on the death of a mother who has been caring for young children. Quite frankly, in my view, remotely controlled social services are just not able to cope with that sort of problem. From my experience as a country legal practitioner I am aware of the help which local communities are able to provide. I believe that if local communities could get some assistance from local government in providing help in crisis situations it would be a marvellous thing. State governments seem to me to be unable to provide that sort of assistance because even they are too remote. In Victoria the Cain Labor Government seems to think that the State of Victoria ends at the tram terminuses. So in Victoria we have laws dreamed up by city dwellers- Senator Button —That is right. Senator LEWIS —I acknowledge that Senator Button said that that is right. I agree with him. Both the Cain Labor Government and Senator Button think that the State of Victoria ends at the tram terminuses. In Victoria we have laws dreamed up by city dwellers to cover their problems in the city of Melbourne and municipality, and those laws are applied quite inappropriately to Victorian rural areas. The worst form of government, of course, is the remote centralised formal government we have here in Canberra. It is quite clear that the best action that State and Federal politicians can take for local governments is to provide them with some funds and allow them to get on with their work. The Bill does not face up to any of the problems I have raised in regard to this area. What it does is attempt to implement some of the recommendations of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance. That inquiry produced a report of some 482 pages resulting in 50 recommendations. Not all those recommendations are addressed in this Bill. Although the Opposition will not oppose the Bill, we point out that in our view there are better ways of carrying out those recommendations. In particular in the Bill I think we can see the heavy hand of Mr Wran in the way the Federal Government has failed to address the recommendation of the Self committee for the elimination of rate pegging. That would have been a source of particular embarrassment to the New South Wales Government, of course, which uses this device for political manipulation. As I have indicated, I believe it is far easier for the third tier of government to deliver services efficiently, because at this level local needs are known, waste is more clearly identified, and the ratepayers, who are footing the bill, are more readily able to identify the operation of Parkinson's law. This Bill seeks to abolish the guaranteed share of personal income tax introduced by the Fraser Government and replace it with a short term measure that maintains untied grants and real levels of funding for a period of two years. Since the introduction of the personal income tax sharing method of funding allocation some local governments have enjoyed windfall increases in their personal income tax collections. Unfortunately, some State governments have taken advantage of those benefits to the detriment of local government. Councils have had a number of State functions passed on to them without adequate funding for those functions. The binding of grants to the separate tiers of State and local government should stop this nonsense. We certainly hope it does. The decision to allocate money to the States on a per capita basis may, on the surface, appear to be fair but in fact it does give preferential treatment to some States which previously have fared badly under the earlier system. In particular, I refer to my State of Victoria, which fared very badly under the Hamer-Thompson Liberal Government. I acknowledge that the proposed new system will take money away from some other States. In particular, as my Tasmanian colleagues will no doubt tell the Senate, Tasmania will suffer a fall in funding of about 11 per cent. The main problem is that this new system of allocating money to the States for distribution to local government really fails to take into account the physical size of some States; their geography; the density of their populations-in other words, the degree of their decentralisation; the stage of their economic development; or their distances from or ease of access to sources of supply. So the per capita payment will involve significantly different provisions for some States. I point out that there are arguments both ways so far as some sort of rationalisation or per capita payment is concerned. I recognise the merit of the criticisms my Tasmanian colleagues will make in regard to the per capita equality of payment system. On the other hand, I point out to them that they choose to enjoy the unique quality of life of Tasmania and they should not complain too much-I know that they will complain-about the lack of some of the services provided in large metropolises. Of course, this argument is as old as Federation and is not resolved by this Bill. The fact that there will be no review of the process until 1992 is another matter of some concern. It is an unnecessarily long period in which to enable the process to get settled. There will be no general response until that period has elapsed. Perhaps a more appropriate time for review would be in about five years, especially when we take into account the time lag in government inquiries. General purpose grants have been retained with the declared purpose of correcting the so-called horizontal imbalance that allegedly exists between wealthy and poorer councils. What is a poor council? Is it an inner metropolitan council with much industry in the suburbs of a large city or is it a shire with marginal farming land? I do not know the answer to that question, and the Government fails to give any indication of how local government State grants commissions should go about making the judgment. However, we do know that Labor governments in our States have favoured inner city councils in their electorates and endeavoured to enforce amalgamations, regardless of local desires. To correct this so-called horizontal imbalance, each State is allowed to submit its own principles for approval. If it fails to do so or if the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services finds those principles unacceptable the Minister will have the right to impose guidelines of principles of his liking. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has conducted a number of dry-run allocations but the Minister has not told us what principles were used. We suggest that the Government ought to come clean and tell us about the principles and the results and let the State and local governments know what principles the Minister expects the State grants commissions to use, or at least to consider. Pressed by the Opposition, the Government has clarified the relationship between the increases in the general purpose funds to local government and the increases in general purpose assistance to the States. We thank the Government for that. The Government has accepted the Opposition's amendment, which formalises consultation procedures between the representatives of local government associations and the relevant State Minister and the Federal Minister. That was a sound amendment and we acknowledge the Government's recognition of that. We will not be supporting the Australian Democrats' amendment concerning what future governments should do. That will be a matter for future consideration and debate. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(11.05) —Today we are debating the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986. This legislation replaces the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. As you will be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President, that Act followed the introduction by the Whitlam Government in 1974-75 of general purpose assistance for local government. In fact, it was the initiative of a Labor government which led to today's situation, where local government in Australia receives over $500m annually in untied assistance from Canberra. In that first year, the general purpose assistance given by the Whitlam Government for local government was, I believe, of the order of $40m or $50m a year. As I have indicated, funding is now in the vicinity of $500m to $600m annually. The Bill before us this morning arises out of the report of the Government's National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, known as the Self report. That inquiry was commissioned by the Hawke Government to improve the program of general purpose financial assistance for local government-a program which has not been reviewed for a decade. Commonwealth assistance to local government in this form-untied, with no strings attached-is vital for the important tier of government in Australia. In fact, in my State, I believe that there are three local country councils which receive more in untied assistance from Canberra than they do from rate revenue. One of those councils is the Carrieton Council in the north of South Australia, which receives more assistance from Canberra than it does from its rate collections. Clearly, this assistance is vital. The Government has accepted the findings of the Self inquiry. It has accepted the overall finding that the Commonwealth Government should maintain a program of general purpose support for local government, but that the character of the program should be changed in certain respects. Under the Act that is being replaced, grants for local government from the Commonwealth were tied to a percentage of personal income tax receipts, and one of the big disadvantages of that approach was the sheer instability in the annual rate of growth of personal income tax collections by the Commonwealth Government. For example, in 1982-83, personal income tax collections grew by some 21 per cent-a very rapid rise indeed. In the very next year, 1983-84, the growth in personal income tax collections slumped to some 8.2 per cent. Because local government finance was tied to personal income tax collection, there were very large variations in the rates of growth of funding to local councils from Canberra. That fluctuation and the high degree of instability made sound financial planning that much more difficult for this very vital level of government in Australia. Under the new legislation there will be a base level of funding, equivalent to the level of assistance received by local government in the States and the Northern Territory in the current financial year-1985-86-plus an adjustment to bring the Northern Territory per capita payments into line with those in the States. This provides for a base figure for local government assistance of some $540m. Next financial year, as a result of this legislation, the actual payment for local government shall be the base figure, that is, the $540m, multiplied by either-I stress the word `either'-the increase in the consumer price index as a measure of price rises, or inflation in the community for that year, or the percentage change in Commonwealth Government general purpose payments to the States, whichever is the greater. Local government will get funds based on either the rate of growth in assistance to the States or the guaranteed figure as provided by changes in the consumer price index. So local government will receive a guarantee in real terms that its assistance will be protected from inflation. At the very moment that we are debating this legislation, in another place the six State Premiers are holding discussions with the Commonwealth Government about the percentage growth in their funding for 1986-87. It is expected that they will receive a 2 per cent growth in funding in real terms. I stress that if that is the case local government could be looking at a 2 per cent real terms growth in its funding in 1986-87. For the subsequent financial year, beginning on 1 July 1987, payment calculations for local government assistance from Canberra will be made on the same basis as those for 1986-87. For all subsequent years-that is, after 1987-88-payment calculations will be based simply on the percentage change in Commonwealth general purpose assistance to the States. I believe, and I am sure that most honourable senators believe, that these new financial arrangements will provide a stable financial base from which local government can plan with more certainty, more precision and more accuracy than it could under the previous arrangements. In making that comment, I refer to a front page story in the Adelaide Advertiser of 24 March 1986 which quoted Senator Jessop. He tried to get a fear campaign going in the community. He tried to perpetrate a fear campaign among local councils by suggesting that there would be massive cuts in local government funding in this year's Commonwealth Budget and that councils would suffer as a result. He said that as recently as 24 March. That is the sort of short term fear campaign and short term publicity grab that is carried out on a regular basis by conservative politicians in this country. Senator Jessop's claims have been exposed in the past two or three months as having absolutely no foundation. Senator Jessop, in his comments as reported by the Adelaide Advertiser, warned that because of a tough financial situation, local government funds from Canberra could be cut and there would be a sharp rise in local council rates in South Australia. That is what he told the local community. He said that local government funding from Canberra would be cut and then he went on to say that ratepayers in local councils in South Australia should not be surprised if increases in rates followed as a result of tough budgetary measures imposed on local government by Canberra. In the article in which he made those outrageous claims, he was quoted as being a secretary of some committee on local government. The article did not make quite clear what that committee is. It is certainly not a committee of this House. It is certainly not a committee of the joint Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Presumably, Senator Jessop was making some partisan political comment based on his being secretary of a political committee. His claims have been completely exposed as having no foundation. I wish to refer in this context to a letter I received dated 28 April from the Secretary-General of the Local Government Association of South Australia in which he said that the Local Government Association believed that the proposition of local government funding increases being tied to those of the States was both realistic and acceptable in the current economic climate. So the fear campaign has been exposed. Under the measures in this Bill, each State's share of the total grant, from 1989-90 onwards, will be equal to that State's share of the Australian population. In the preceding years, the shares of each State will gradually be changed from the present relativities basis to a population basis. As a result, it seems as though the States of Victoria and South Australia will increase their share of total local government grants paid by the Commonwealth Government in Canberra. The other States will have a reduced share in total national local government funding, but there will be no reduction in money terms in the payment to any of these States from one year to the next. So they will be protected in money terms while the new shares of the national local government cake are phased in by the Commonwealth Government. A principal objective of the new program is to provide financial assistance to those local councils most disadvantaged in their ability to raise revenue and to provide services. In other words, more of the local government funds provided by the Hawke Government in Canberra will be paid on a needs basis, according to the needs of those local councils. I believe that is a very welcome move, and it is certainly a much more equitable approach to distributing local government funding. The States will be required to allocate funds in a way that equalises each council's ability to undertake its functions with respect to the average standard performance of other local councils in the State concerned. However, the Government recognises that local government as a whole has a restricted base from which to raise revenue to finance its expanding functions. Therefore, the Government has ensured that every council in Australia will continue to receive some assistance under the program. What that boils down to is that 30 per cent of funding under the program will be paid on a per capita basis within each State. This year-1985-86-local government in Australia will receive some $534m from the Commonwealth Government in completely untied funds which will be made available to local government to spend as it wishes. The total level of funding, including the untied and some tied funds, amounts to $1,000m. This is a very big increase in the funds paid to local government compared with those paid in the Fraser years when the present Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, was Treasurer. In conclusion, the Bill before the Senate will provide continuity and certainty for an important element of local government finance, while at the same time providing a more equitable distribution of funds for local government. The Bill will guarantee local government funding for the years ahead. It is a vitally important measure for all councils in Australia and accordingly, I believe, is a very welcome measure. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(11.15) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill. We are not particularly happy with the outcome, but we recognise that in the current economic climate and with the House of Representatives in recess there is not much that can be done about giving a better funding deal to local government. We believe that councils should have received a guaranteed 2 per cent real terms increase in untied funds, at least for two years. I shall explain shortly why that is justified and why we will not proceed with the draft amendment which we had set out to achieve that guarantee. We believe also that councils should receive a fixed proportion of all Commonwealth revenue. I will move a second reading amendment so that we can vote on that principle. I want to establish why such an expression of views by the Senate is important. The amendment is to make certain that local government gets a fixed proportion of Federal Government revenue. I understand from Senator Lewis that the Opposition will not be supporting that amendment, which disappoints me. On 28 May last year Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia senators assisted the Government in abandoning the commitment to provide 2 per cent of personal income tax collections in untied funds. Without that change to the personal income tax sharing legislation the Self report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance would have had a clean slate on which to carry out its assessment of the impact of revenue sharing and to make recommendations for the future. Professor Peter Self, the Chairman of the National Inquiry, said in his keynote address to the Australian Council of Local Government Associations last November: We believe that there is a very respectable case to be made for the hypothecation of revenues for local government. It is a perfectly good case in the sense that it recognises the political weakness of local government and the small scale of local government and the need constantly for as much stability as possible. Professor Self went on to say that the Inquiry decided that equality with the States-another thing that local government wanted-was a better option. He continued: I suppose our reason for saying this was partly political realism. We feel that the PITS system is going to find it very difficult to survive in the tough financial climate in Canberra but also more positively because we believe it is time local government came of age and was prepared to accept the same process of periodic reviews and renegotiation of terms with Canberra as the State . . . It is of course still policy in both the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition platforms that local government should receive 2 per cent of personal income tax revenue. Councils have accepted the sacrifice thrown upon them at the last minute. Last year New South Wales councils were nearly halfway through their financial year when the cutbacks occurred. Councils around the nation have adopted an extremely responsible attitude. They are used to difficult times and facing up to hard decisions. In New South Wales those decisions were even worse because of the infamous rate pegging operations which were set up by the Wran Government. Councils have known also that the Department of the Treasury and Department of Finance representatives on the interdepartmental committee which examined the Self report did not resile from their antediluvian attitudes. Those departments had shown an amazing lack of awareness of the principles of equalisation when officers gave evidence before the Inquiry. There seemed to be an attitude that councils were creatures of the States and, therefore, ought to be part of a State program in some way or other. Treasury officials placed major emphasis also on statistics from the period before the introduction of personal income tax sharing. They then made various erroneous conclusions or assertions on the basis that they could not see how the general picture had changed much since that period. The members of the Inquiry commented, in part of the report, on their heavy reliance on those outdated figures. Even when the Office of Local Government was able to produce updated statistical material on aggregate financial flows, Commonwealth and State financial assistance to local government and local government's own rating effort, Treasury and Finance continued to dig in their toes. I am pleased that the facts eventually prevailed on this occasion, but I am somewhat disturbed by the apparent intransigence of both Treasury and Finance. Indeed, at the time they appeared almost to have an ideological hangup about local government. I believe that such prejudices should be thoroughly exposed so that the proper questioning will always take place. The processes of government really need a thorough clean out. If this is the way in which Treasury goes about its financial work and planning, we really have a problem. Indeed, the assessment is hard to make because questions on notice to the Department of the Treasury are rarely dealt with in a prompt and effective manner. The Australian Democrats believe that in this atmosphere and in the light of what has actually happened in the past year or so, it is useful for the Senate at least to address itself to the question of principle. That is why we will be moving a second reading amendment that local government, in principle, should get a fixed proportion of total Commonwealth Government revenue. The acceptance of that principle by this Senate, particularly if the Government endorses it, will put the matter on the agenda when revised arrangements for funding of local government are discussed. Total revenue is more predictable than personal income tax collections and would enable councils to plan ahead much more effectively. Having dealt with the second reading amendment, I turn to some important findings of the Self Inquiry on the conditions under which councils are currently operating. The Shire Clerk of the Shire of Severn in New South Wales wrote to me earlier this year pointing out how astounded that council was by last May's decision by this Parliament to hack at its funding base. The Shire Clerk said: I am sure that you will appreciate how difficult it is for a rural council such as Severn, to provide services to a population scattered at the rate of one person to every 1.8 square kilometres! Yet these people really deserve the same degree of local government services as enjoyed by people living in more closely settled areas. While it is not possible to provide exactly the same standard of local government services, the revenue assistance grants do in some measure help to equalize the standard of services. That is what fiscal equalisation is about; giving all councils the opportunity to make their own decisions about which services are needed by the community. Local government has a rather limited revenue base and it is currently tied to rates. It needs some type of top-up if we are to avoid greater divisions in the nation between the haves and the have nots. This division is generally based on geographical areas. As Senator Lewis has said, it is very difficult to recognise the difference between a poor council in a city and a poor council out in the sticks. The word certainly went around local government circles that even real terms guarantees were under threat as long as Treasury and Finance continued to show their hostility on the interdepartmental committee. For instance, I received a telegram from the Riverland Local Government Association on 25 March 1986 drawing attention to the delay in getting a decision on the report of the National Inquiry. I seek leave to have that telegram incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The telegram read as follows- CAA 142= AST 52= C180= Berri Sub SA 84/76 12.20P Senator David Vigor Parliament House Canberra Riverland local government association very concerned at the delay in getting crucial federal revenue sharing legislation consequence upon the (self-report) in place for 1986 stop Rumoured cuts in these funds would spell further financial stress for the rural sector as well as those dependent municipalities and cities stop Would you please give urgent attention to using your best offices to secure a remedy to these very real concerns Riverland Local Government Association Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Corporation of the Town of Hindmarsh in South Australia pointed out the effect of any possible cutback in funding. All of the choices such as the wind back of human services commitments or massive rate increases would be disastrous to those communities. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter setting out those problems. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HINDMARSH File No.: 215-2 Enquiries: Mr. Spencer 27th March, 1986 Senator David Vigor, 10 Pitt Street, Adelaide, S.A. 500 Dear Sir, Re: Self Report-National Inquiry Into Local Government Finance I write on behalf of Council to bring to your attention the very serious ramifications to this Council should the Federal Government move to cut or abolish revenue sharing for Local Government in the following year or years. Council's present allocation of monies received through revenue (allocated by State Grants Commission) is equivalent to 19.2% of the 1985/86 rate revenue. Should this allocation be cut or more importantly, abolished, the effect on this Council's low socio-economic community would be disastrous. In the event of this happening, council would have to proceed with one of the following options:- 1. Reduce all existing service levels. 2. Cut out all of its human service commitments, i.e. Community Co-ordinators, Community Nurse, Welfare Officer, Library etc. to maintain its traditional services of road, rubbish, drainage, reserves etc. 3. Pull out of its agreement with the State Government to develop 25% of the Town which has been blighted by 20 years of Government inaction caused by the M.A.T.S. Plan. This would certainly make living conditions in Hindmarsh even harsher than they presently are. Council has a commitment to this scheme in excess of $300,000 p.a. which is equivalent to our Revenue Sharing grant. 4. Put up its rates accordingly to accommodate for the cuts. The worst scenario would be 19.2% plus the normal yearly rate increase which has averaged 13.19% per year since 1974. This larger than average rate increase has been necessary due to Council having to play a lone hand in redeveloping a depressed, low socio-economic area of the western region of Adelaide. The attitude of the community of Hindmarsh to a rate in excess of 30% in one year would have serious repercussions for the Federal Government. There could be no denial as to the major reason for such an excessive rate increase in one year. 5. The Council could simply tell the State Government that it could no longer be effective without Revenue Sharing and close its doors to business. To alleviate this Council's concern for the continuance of Revenue Sharing, Council implores that you impress on the Federal Government the necessity to at least guarantee the following four issues.- 1. Council wants the issue of Revenue Sharing for Local Government resolved to their satisfaction in this financial year. 2. Council is willing, in the current financial climate to accept a financial agreement for 3-5 years limiting the increase in the total funds for Local Government to: the previous year's allocation, plus a percentage increase equivalent to 2 p.c. above the rise in the C.P.I. 3. Council believes the funds should be allocated by the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission on an equalisation basis on criteria and against standards set at a State level in consultation with Local Government (Element B). 4. Each Council should continue to be guaranteed a per capita share of 30 p.c. of the funds available to South Australia (Element A). Your support in obtaining the above elements on behalf of Local Government will certainly mean the continuance of good Government and community service at the vital grass roots level of our three tiered system of Government. More than 15 million Australians are covered by the services provided by Local Government. Cutting back or abolishing Revenue Sharing will affect all of them to some degree or other. In Hindmarsh, 8,000 people will be affected more severely than the average. Hindmarsh Council hopes that it can count on your total support in regard to this most important matter. Yours faithfully, P. J. SPENCER Town Clerk PJS/rej Senator VIGOR —I thank the Senate. The Town Clerk also set out what councils believe would be a fair package for local government. He said that a financial agreement to cover three to five years was essential to stability. Councils believe that a 2 per cent increase in real terms is appropriate in the current climate and that each council should participate in a per capita distribution of the 30 per cent of untied funds. The Government accepted the last of these proposals. This means that every council gets some Commonwealth funds that are not tied. The local government grants commission in each State will be required to work out an equalisation entitlement for each council and to ensure that the sum allocated is not less than the per capita entitlement. If 30 per cent of the funding were distributed on a straight population basis councils must get at least that as a minimum. It is important to understand that the equalisation is not done on top of the per capita component; the per capita element is an inbuilt guarantee. The Australian Democrats share the councils' disappointment that there was not the guaranteed 2 per cent real terms increase built into the untied funding for the next two years. The deal struck with the States last year was for a 2 per cent real terms increase for two years. The Government is apparently sticking to that this year. But what will happen the year after? The Australian Council of Local Government Associations pointed out in March of this year that about 350 jobs hinge on every $10m that councils receive. Of those jobs, about 190 would be in works programs including roads, 80 in community health and welfare and 50 in sports and recreation. At the last ACLGA conference Professor Self said: . . . it is the case that there are a number of growing services in Australia which may be best performed at the local government level-I refer here to the human or people services. In fields of health and welfare there is now a move away from institutional care which is everywhere primarily a State responsibility to domiciliary care and local community care which in some States is now handled to an appreciable extent by local government. He could certainly foresee a substantial growing role for local government and I support that role. This has definitely happened in the children's services and housing areas which were virtually untouched 10 years ago. I also draw to the attention of the Senate the endorsement of both Professor Ronald Henderson and Professor John Power of the role of local government in the provision of personal welfare services. This can be found in chapter 6 of the Self report. Professor Power said that municipal involvement is a necessary condition for the attainment of co-ordination and integration of community services. Professor Henderson said: In our first poverty study . . . we found that many of the Commonwealth and State agencies were so specialist that they did not provide for the total needs of a family and there were a lot of access problems . . . The people who did seem to be making a major contribution to meeting the needs of those who needed some help were at that time a small number of . . . municipal social workers . . . They were making a real effort not to provide all the services themselves, but they knew what was available in their community from local groups, from voluntary groups as well as from statutory sources, and they could guide, direct and lead people in need of help to the help that was available. That is why I have been enthusiastically trying to encourage the growth of this sort of thing ever since. What better recommendation could we have for those interested in social justice? Professor Henderson said that welfare funds can be spent extremely effectively at the local government level. It was these considerations and the 2 per cent real increase offered to the States that caused the Democrats to believe that local government should have had 2 per cent real terms guarantees for two years built into this legislation. We consulted several prominent people with years of local government experience about the usefulness of an amendment requesting a guarantee that an extra 2 per cent be included. Their view was that, if the amendment passed, Treasury and Finance might use the long period between now and when the House of Representatives returns to continue their campaign of attacking and undermining the positions of councils. We have decided not to put the Opposition to the test, nor to offer the knife-wielders an opportunity to be vindictive. In relation to other matters of concern to councils across the nation, I draw the Senate's attention to an important resolution from the last ACLGA conference. It reads: . . . that the Australian Council for Intergovernment Relations be asked to consider appropriate forms of contractual arrangements between councils and government agencies for use when negotiating joint programs. Councils feel that they are too often taken for granted or that the Commonwealth or State governments unilaterally alter the terms of programs and force local government to carry an extra burden without any warning. The investigation proposed is the type of short sharp, practical inquiry that ACIR must get into the habit of undertaking if it is to stave off the attentions of all the people who would like to see it abolished. The other general matter relates to local government grants commissions which recommend the allocation of the funds available to councils in each State. I have found their staff most co-operative and quite able to explain their procedures. The task may be difficult when those inquiring do not have a mathematical background. The use of average standards rather than a weighted average for the top 50 per cent of councils in various categories in New South Wales, or the use of a weighted average of the top 25 per cent in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, will make some differences in the individual allocations. The councils with fewest resources and greatest need will benefit from the adoption of the lower standards. Other councils with quite legitimate needs will find that their grants have dropped because the extra assistance is being channelled to those assessed as being more at disadvantage. I believe that the grants commissions should hold seminars and use all other means to let councils know just how the procedures will operate because I am not certain that they understand them. Otherwise, there will indeed be screams of anguish when the recommendations come out. I have some questions which I would like cleared up in the Committee stage. But in general the Democrats will support the Bill. We will seek undertakings from the Government in certain areas. I commend the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, for the work he has done in this area in the positively quite hostile environment of cutting funds. I move: At the end of the motion, add: `, and the Senate recognises that local government bodies should be entitled to a fixed percentage of Federal Government revenues, and urges that this course should be followed in future legislation'. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.33) —After hearing Senator Vigor canvass the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill so thoroughly, one wonders what is left. However, I rise to speak on this Bill because there are some matters of concern to the councils in my State. While, first of all, I declare that we will support this Bill, it is nevertheless of some concern to us that some of the recommendations in the Self report of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance were not implemented. Some of the ways in which the Bill will provide for future funding are obviously of more concern to some States than to others. The funding being allowed to continue at the present level in general for the whole of Australia for the next two years is good. That it will be adjusted in accordance with changes to the Federal Government assistance to the States thereafter is another matter. There are problems when we look at the general distribution between the States. The main principle and the main problem is the unweighted per capita basis. This takes no account of the population density or the special problems in certain areas such as road costs, distances and that sort of thing. Western Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and particularly Tasmania all suffer a decrease in their share of the pool and they will all suffer because of their decentralised populations. The per capita method of allocation will be phased in over the next couple of years. I draw honourable senators' attention to the fact that Tasmania will suffer a reduction over those two years in its share of the funds of 10.42 per cent. In a small State with a small economy that is particularly harmful. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the percentage distribution of Commonwealth general revenue sharing grants to the States. It is based on the information contained in clause 7 of the Bill. Leave granted. The table read as follows- PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMONWEALTH GENERAL REVENUE SHARING GRANTS TO THE STATES 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS BY STATE Column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 State 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 and subsequent years Percentage differences 1986-87- 1987-88 1987-88- 1988-89 1986-87- 1988-89 New South Wales... 36.1593 35.6609 35.1625 -1.38 -1.40 -2.76 Victoria... 25.2153 25.8433 26.4714 +2.49 +2.43 +4.98 Queensland... 16.7043 16.6526 16.6010 -0.31 -0.31 -0.62 Western Australia... 9.3026 9.2407 9.1788 -0.67 -0.67 -1.33 South Australia... 8.5212 8.6552 8.7890 +1.57 +1.55 +3.14 Tasmania... 3.1700 3.0049 2.8398 -5.21 -5.49 -10.42 Northern Territory... 0.9273 0.9424 0.9575 1.63 +1.60 3.26 Source: The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986, section 7. Senator NEWMAN —I thank the Senate. The loss to Tasmania of 10.42 per cent over the two years is very clearly demonstrated by that table. There is a 2.76 per cent loss to New South Wales over that period, a 0.62 per cent loss to Queensland and a 1.33 loss to Western Australia. The Northern Territory does all right. It has a plus of 3.26 per cent; South Australia has a plus of 3.14 per cent and Victoria has a plus of 4.98 per cent. So my friend and colleague, Senator Lewis, does not quite have the feeling about the allocations between the States as we Tasmanians obviously must have. The Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) has claimed that changes in relativities will be made in such a way that the States will not lose but they will, in fact, lose in real terms. The Minister is quoted in the Examiner of 28 May this year in response to a telex which he had received from the State Minister, Mr Braid. He said that Tasmania would benefit by the new arrangements. He claimed that under the old scheme the State received $17.15m and that under the new scheme Tasmania would receive at least $18.3m in 1986-87 and at least $18.6m in 1987-88. Using the Minister's own figures, this is approximately a 1.6 per cent increase between 1986-87 and 1987-88. We know that inflation is currently running in the area of 9 per cent, so Tasmania suffers a considerable loss in real terms. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the President of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Councillor L. J. Mooney, estimates that the reduction from 3.17 per cent now to 2.83 per cent over the next two years would mean a reduction of at least $1.7m in real terms. He stated: With such a dramatic reduction of funds available to Local Government, services and facilities would have to be cut or rates increased . . . I also quote from a statement from the Secretary of the Municipal Association of Tasmania, Mr Armsby, who said: The adjustment necessary to rectify this loss would be of a minimal effect on the other States-$1.7m of Tasmania's $17m is a ten per cent reduction, but $1.7m to some of the other States is less than 2 per cent of their grant and would not be noticed. That is our problem in a nutshell. The lack of regard for the different revenue raising abilities that has been referred to earlier in the debate is just not fair or equitable. The small isolated municipalities that we find in a lot of decentralised States have limited revenue raising abilities but they have very high expenses with big road costs and other areas of concern for their community which cannot be easily met. Senator Harradine —Such as climatic conditions and the like. Senator NEWMAN —As Senator Harradine says: `Such as climatic conditions and the like'. It is a matter of real concern and it is not something which can perhaps easily be understood in Canberra where the Bill is drafted and where these decisions are taken and are pretty remote, as I see all the kerbs, gutters and community facilities, from what the average provincial towns and country centres of Australia have to cope with and face. As I said earlier, the Self national inquiry has made a number of worthwhile recommendations but unfortunately they have not all been incorporated in the Bill. The Self report recommended that local government should receive a long term real terms guarantee. The Federal Government has only undertaken to adjust the total pool of funds by changes in the general purpose grants to the States. Nowhere in the Bill is a real terms guarantee given at all. After 1988-89, our allocations will depend solely on our share of the Australian population. Self acknowledged that the distribution on that basis was simple and predictable, but he also recommended that consideration should be given to adjustment for functional differences between local authorities in different States and the differences in State attributes, such as revenue raising capacity and road needs. The Self report states: The interstate distribution of funds should be reviewed before determining grants for the period 1986-87 onwards; Prior to any such review, and after consultation with the parties involved, the Commonwealth may request the Commonwealth Grants Commission to prepare proposals for revised relativities. If no request is made to the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the suggested set of relativities will be per capita; and In a review of relativities the Commonwealth Grants Commission, within the limits of reasonable cost, should consider the implications of differences of functional responsibility and consequences of the equalisation purpose of the grants . . . and should call for submissions from the parties involved in the review. That was the recommendation. We find in the Bill that the Government has taken the easy way out and has gone for this strict per capita distribution. That is a matter of sadness and concern to us. The other matter of concern is that there will not be a real review until 1992. We can only hope that at this late date this inappropriate form of distribution will be replaced by a more equitable system. The reduction in the Tasmanian share of the Federal revenue has caused widespread concern in Tasmania. One of the items of concern is that we will be suffering this loss and it is going to happen over a two-year period. Many Liberals from Tasmania have said in recent times that we have a very vulnerable, very fragile economy and yet we cannot easily take the sorts of savage cuts that are forced on us without a period of adjustment. If these cuts had to take place it would have been desirable for them to have taken place over a five-year period, which is the suggestion from the Municipal Association of Tasmania. I support that suggestion. It seems to me to be very difficult for Tasmania particularly to cope with that cut over such a short period. Another matter of concern is the level of control which the Commonwealth will exercise over the distribution within the States. It is commendable that each State be allowed to formulate its own set of principles. This allows the States to take account of their particular attributes in regard to expenditure requirements. It is of concern to me that the Minister retains the power to revoke or alter the principles if he sees fit. Another matter of concern on that same line is that no guidelines are produced for the formulation of those principles. I will read briefly from a letter I have received from the Municipal Association of Tasmania on that aspect. It states: The role of the Commonwealth in this respect should be one of producing guidelines or principles for States Grants Commissions to interpret, bearing in mind the special needs of their own States. This is of course different from the prescription of the Bill which involves the formulating of principles by the States which are then submitted to the Federal Minister for approval. I draw that suggestion to the attention of the Government. I also draw the Government's attention to the recommendation in the Self report concerning review. That recommendation was that interstate distribution arrangements should be reviewed from 1987 and a review of the effect of the guidelines for intrastate distribution and the level of funding in 1988 should also be carried out. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations in general terms supported the report's review schedule, but it emphasised that it was desirable to review the level of funding and its method of calculation after the trilogy commitment expired in mid-1988. I am concerned that this review will take place only after 1992. The explanatory memorandum claims that this is the earliest practicable time for a review, but I reject that claim. I do not believe that that is facing facts. The review is being put too far down the track. Too much damage can be done in that period. In conclusion, I am afraid that as a Tasmanian I am getting to the stage of waking up in the morning and wondering what the Government has done to us today. I suppose we will wake up tomorrow and find out what it has done to us this day. I have great fears. We seem to bear the brunt of savage cuts, and now we are also faced with a reduction in real terms in the level of funding to local government. Goodness knows what our Premier is facing right now at the Premiers Conference in the other chamber. Tasmania has a fragile economy. We do not have a big population base. It is difficult for us to adjust easily to cuts, certainly over a short term. The Government should know that and it should make provision for it. There was provision in the Self report for this to happen and the Government has not taken advantage of that opportunity. Recently the Federal Treasurer told our State Labor Opposition Leader, Mr Neil Batt, that he was not up to date with developments in the Tasmanian economy. He also said he was not aware of the very special nature of our economy. I am appalled that we should have this admission from the Federal Treasurer. When we have that sort of admission and then see that this Bill, with what would otherwise be seen as reasonable and fair provisions, contains once again this same sort of treatment of Tasmania, it looks as though the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, Mr Uren, must be in the same boat as the Treasurer. I urge him to look again at the disadvantages imposed on Tasmania by the provisions of this Bill. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(11.48) —We are debating the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1986. Of course, the Government would have us believe that this legislation is the natural product of the report of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance and that this legislation is a reflection of the recommendations of that inquiry. Of course, that is not the case. This legislation is a compromise designed to restrict and cut expenditure. Although naturally I am in support of maintaining Commonwealth distribution of general purpose assistance grants for local government, I must say that I have grave misgivings regarding the degree of equity this Bill will promote amongst local governments and, indeed, between States. While the findings of the Self Inquiry have generally been accepted by the Government, I find its adherence to the guidelines, and its interpretation of them, disappointing. When general purpose financial assistance for local government was first established under the Whitlam Government through the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 the grant was, of course, for the purpose of enabling local government bodies to function at a standard not appreciably below the level of other regional organisations or other local government bodies. In other words, it was for the purpose of general horizontal equalisation. Grants for each region were thus allocated on an individually assessed basis according to need, on a weighted per capita basis. Under that formula Western Australia and Queensland, quite naturally, were thus allocated a larger proportion of the total share in recognition of their larger size, decentralised populations and inherent costs that would be borne by them as a result of those factors. This system of fund allocation was generally maintained when the determination of total fund size was altered by the introduction under the Fraser Government of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. That is, the proportional allocation of local government funds to the States was still apportioned according to relativities. The only difference was that, rather than the funding going directly to the States, there was an aggregation of the total revenue that in the past had gone to individual States, which went in bulk to the States for distribution by them to the various local governments-again on the basis of need as well as on a per capita basis. So the proportional allocation of local government funds to the States was still made according to relativities. The Bill before us dispenses with the need to maintain that relativity. As a consequence, Western Australia and Queensland are to be considerably disadvantaged. In addition, Tasmania, although it is not encumbered by a factor of size, will suffer a gross reduction in its level of funding. That reduction in funding will be a great deal more than for any other State. The broadly defined recommendation of the Self committee was that Commonwealth assistance should be maintained for local government, with the aim of continuing to promote a system in support of horizontal equalisation. The factors of need, the capacity to raise funds and the requirements of expenditure are all to be taken into consideration. In so doing, the local government authorities are compensated for disabilities associated with such deficiencies. The purpose was to ensure that there was an average standard among all local governments. Yet this Government, in accepting the findings of the Self committee that local government funding should be continued, has looked at only one half of the equation set down by the Self inquiry. It has taken the answer but it has brushed aside the reasoning. By the year 1988-89 the distribution between the States will be solely on a per capita basis. The needs factor will be removed from the equation. From 1989-90 onwards, State shares will then be distributed exclusively on that criterion. This means that by 1988-89 Western Australia will have incurred a 1.4 per cent reduction in its share of total funds and Tasmania's share, as has been stated by Senator Newman, will be reduced by 10.4 per cent. Victoria, however, which is one of our smaller but more populous States, will receive 5 per cent more than its current share. South Australia will also receive a greater slice of the cake by way of a 3.2 per cent increase. The legislation provides for a guarantee in real terms only for the first two years until 1987-88, while it is guaranteed that for 1988-89 the rise in local government grants will be equal to that received by the States. That means that local government from that point onwards will be reliant upon State efforts to maintain their real level of funding. That simply means that if the State does badly, local government does badly. If the State has a windfall, local government has a windfall. While there is no relationship between the two, they will be inextricably tied. Even under the assumption that payments are at least maintained in real terms for the full three years, translating the altered percentage distributions into real money terms will mean that Western Australia's share of funds will drop from approximately $50m to $49m by 1988-89. Tasmania's share will fall from $17m to $15m, and Queensland will also lose about $1m. Victoria will do very handsomely under the arrangement-it will add about $7m to its bank-and South Australia can count on an additional $2m. If a 2 per cent rise in real terms were included in the estimates, Western Australia would be as well off now as it was then, Tasmania would still lose about $1m, Victoria would gain about $8m instead of $7m and South Australia would gain $3m instead of $2m. But, of course, that will not be the case. While the Government announced a couple of days ago that there would be a 2 per cent increase in real terms in State financial assistance grants and general health grants, it did not include the allocation of general purpose capital grants. While we will not know until today what they will be, if I can believe the front page of the Australian there will be a $1 billion cut. I am not saying that there will be a cut only in capital grants, but no doubt capital grants will be significantly affected. If we include that in the equation, it is not an increase of 2 per cent in real terms; it is considerably less. On that basis, of course, local government will be considerably worse off in the future. As I said earlier, the purpose of local government assistance is to promote a system of equalisation between local governments which is based on maintaining a set minimum standard. It is obvious that a reduction in the total pool share allocated to my State of Western Australia will mean that those standards and community expectations will have to be considerably lowered. Equalisation, therefore, will still occur in each local government region within Western Australia, but the inequities of the system of distribution will mean that the set minimum standards uniformly will be lowered. We will have equalisation in Western Australia but it will just mean that everybody will be worse off under the present system. Additionally, it ought to be remembered that, as the method of determining total local government funds was altered for the 1985-86 period, allocation was reduced from 2 per cent to 1.76 per cent. Last year that saved the Government about $52m. That was because it appeared under the old formula that there would be a windfall profit for the States, and that in turn would have meant a windfall profit for local government. That was cut off at the pass. The figure on which the calculations are being based has been considerably reduced. It is below that which it may have been under normal circumstances and, of course, each State has been denied its additional share. Had the Bill maintained the original formula of the 2 per cent personal income tax sharing scheme as a basis for allocation to the States, as I have said, Western Australia would have been $5m better off in the next financial year than it will be now. Of course with the Government struggling to meet its trilogy commitments, this method of allocation is quite out of the question. Once local government authorities understand the formula and once they understand what they will receive, many of them will be lobbying the Government to create a new formula and a new base. It is quite obvious to me that the Government has taken the recommendations of the National Inquiry into Local Government Finance to suit itself. The final report recommended that a review of payments to the States should consider the differences of functional responsibilities and the consequences of the equalisation purpose of the grant. The 1986 Bill does not address itself to the differences in functional responsibilities between the States. If it had, Western Australia would have been getting a larger share in accordance with its needs, related to its physical size, its population densities and its relatively higher cost structure. In saying that, I remind honourable senators that Western Australia occupies one-third of Australia's total land mass, it has 8.9 per cent of the total population, it has 29 per cent of the national highways, yet it receives only 10.5 per cent of Federal funding for national highways. It has 17.8 per cent of all public roads in Australia, yet it receives only 12.19 per cent of Federal funding. In spite of all that it still provides 20 per cent of Australia's export earnings. It is being denied fair, equitable and reasonable funding under the proposal that is before us. Many Western Australian local government authorities, given their isolation and their disabilities, will be forced under this formula to lower the standards of community services which they have provided in the past. Many simply do not have the capacity to raise their revenue basis. Therefore, the cost will be carried by the entire community. That is not the purpose of equalisation. Western Australians should not have to make do with a general standard of community services which undoubtedly will be appreciably lower than that of some other States. I wanted to touch upon two other matters. One matter has been touched on by Senator Newman; that is, the question of pegging, which has not been addressed in this legislation. I suspect that it is all too hard for the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). It is a popular issue in New South Wales but it is not one that has been addressed in this report as it was required to be addressed. The other matter that concerns me in respect of this legislation is that there is absolute power for the Minister ultimately to impose his own guidelines or to veto State recommendations and proposals for allocations to local councils. In principle, I support the purpose of the Bill. However, its discriminatory nature against some States, particularly Western Australia and to a lesser extent Tasmania, I believe is not in the spirit for which Commonwealth general purpose assistance for local government was intended. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.03) —I wish to speak for only one minute. I know that my intervention at this stage will not have an effect on what is to be done in the chamber today. I acknowledge that we are pressed for time and I will limit my remarks. I believe that what has been said by Senator Newman is what I, and I am sure many other senators from Tasmania, would have desired to say. The widespread concern that has been expressed by local government councillors and administrators in Tasmania is well justified. I believe that this Senate and the Government should take on board what has been said by local government in Tasmania. The Government should also take on board a further assessment that is required for revenue to flow to local government on the basis not only of per capita arrangements but also the revenue and income capacity of particular councils for their roads and other needs. Finally, I simply say that we should do this on the basis of giving local government recognition as near-democracy. I am a great believer in the principle of subsidiarity-namely, that power should reside with the smallest group that is capable of efficiently performing the functions for which the power is required, so that those over whom the power is exercised have closer, more direct control over those who exercise the power. In that way we will have near-democracy in Australia. But if we starve these groups of the funds they deserve, we will not be acting in the interests of democracy in this country. I believe that the Government probably understands that and I would like the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) to give the matter consideration and pass it on to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.05) —I share Senator Harradine's concerns that the purest and best form of democracy is in fact when the smallest sensible unit has power. I wonder what his views are about Tasmania with our 40-plus local government units in a population of 450,000. I wonder whether he, like me, considers that some of those groups are a little small. Perhaps if we put our house in order in Tasmania we could assist the situation a bit. I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate and their support for the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 1986. The Government has been criticised, particularly by Senator Vigor, for breaking away from the previous commitment to a constant share of personal income tax receipts. We make no bones about what we are doing in this Bill. We are moving towards the provision of general purpose financial assistance, rather than general revenue sharing. In doing this we have accepted the main recommendation of the Self National Inquiry into Local Government Finance, which was to provide a program of general purpose financial assistance to local government on terms at least as favourable as the general purpose assistance to the States. In doing this, we are introducing stability and certainty into the arrangements compared with the volatile system of changes in the levels of funds which occurred previously. That volatility also had an effect on the budgeting process of the Federal Government and was a problem for previous governments as well as this one. That problem was recognised by the Self Inquiry. I remind honourable senators that before 1974 when a Labor government introduced Commonwealth funding to local government, there was no such provision of funds. I remember well the criticisms that we received at the time from the Opposition benches for taking such a step. However, we believe that local government deserves the assistance and we have demonstrated our commitment by increasing the tied and untied assistance to local government by about 57 per cent to more than $1 billion, by establishing the first portfolio with specific local government responsibility, by establishing a local government development program aimed at strengthening the capacity of local government to undertake its functions and improving co-operation within local government, by introducing the national awards scheme for innovation for local government and by consulting local government nationally on economic issues-- Senator Lewis —Is it right that Ministers are allowed to read their speeches? Senator GRIMES —Yes, they are actually. Senator Lewis knows that I would like to have that standing order changed because I think senators should be able to read their speeches. We have continued to pursue constitutional recognition for local government and I believe that in those ways we have demonstrated our commitment to local government. I can accept that Senator Newman, Senator Crichton-Browne and Senator Harradine have a duty as senators for their States to come here and make special pleadings for those States. I have no argument with that. However, I think that there has been a general failure to recognise that the Self Inquiry recommended that the distribution between States contained in the present personal income tax sharing legislation should be changed. The Inquiry felt that if it was not practical for the Commonwealth Grants Commission to undertake a study and recommend new State relativities, those relativities should revert to a simple per capita distribution. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has been consulted in this matter and has indicated its belief that the results of such a review would not justify the time and effort involved. In a review conducted in 1979, the Grants Commission concluded that a per capita distribution should be the basis on which interstate distributions should occur because of simplicity and predictability. It also considered per capita distributions to be consistent with the equalisation principle. This does not support the view that the Government has ignored equalisation principles in setting State relativities. We have accepted the view that State shares in this area should be based on population shares. I remind honourable senators that my own State of Tasmania, under other funding arrangements, receives considerably more per capita than any other State. When talking to local councils in Tasmania and to people at the Municipal Association dinner in Launceston a couple of weeks ago, I was impressed with the fact that although of course no council in Tasmania likes to have its revenue cut, there was a general recognition that this was inevitable in this particular area. There was general appreciation of the fact that we accept that changes which occur need to be given time to adjust, that the councils have the capacity to predict for planning purposes what those changes will be and for that reason we have incorporated into the legislation this gradual phasing of State relativities towards the actual population distributions by 1989-90. It is expected that this phasing will avoid the possibility of any State having a reduction in funding from one year to the next. There is a general acceptance by those eminently practical people who serve in local government in Tasmania that this change was inevitable. Of course they do not like it, of course they have made their very reasonable protests and of course honourable senators who represent them here have also made very reasonable contributions to this debate, pointing out the difficulties. I remind honourable senators that it is inconsistent to stand up in this place and advocate huge cuts in government expenditure all over the place, but at the same time stand up, as Senator Crichton-Browne has done, and say: `We want cuts in government expenditure but not in my State or my local government areas-no way'. I have done that too. We have all done that sort of thing. I think that the new system is fair and particularly predictable. I will pass Senator Harradine's concerns on to the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) who, I believe, has the same view as Senator Harradine. I thank honourable senators and urge an early passage of this legislation. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Vigor's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 56 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 51 —— Chipp, D. L. Siddons, J. R. Macklin, M. J. (Teller) Vigor, D. B. Sanders, N. K. Alston, R. K. R. Harradine, B. Archer, B. R. Hill, R. Aulich, T. Jones, G. N. Baume, Michael Knowles, S. C. Baume, Peter Lewis, A. W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. McClelland, DouglasBlack, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. Bolkus, N. Maguire, G. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Newman, J. M. Childs, B. K. Parer, W. R. Coates, J. Puplick, C. J. G. Coleman, R. N. Ray, RobertCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Colston, M. A. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. Cooney, B. Ryan, S. M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Sheil, G. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R. Devlin, R. Sibraa, K. W. Durack, P. D. Tate, M. C. Elstob, R. C. Teague, B. C. Evans, Gareth Townley, M. Foreman, D. J. Vanstone, A. E. Giles, P. J. Walters, M. S. Grimes, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Withers, R. G. Hamer, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.20) —I have several short questions on which I seek clarification from the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes). In respect of clause 6, I would like some indication from the Government as to what items will be covered under the item `identified health grants', referred to in sub-section (5). Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.21) —`Identified health grants' are grants which were previously paid to the States under the hospital cost sharing agreements as well as payments for the community health and school dental programs. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.21) —Clause 7 indicates just what proportion of the general revenue funding is to go to each State. The Government has adopted a smooth phasing-in of the adjustment of relativities on a strict per capita basis. Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory will pick up a slightly larger share as a result. The interesting point is that nowhere in the Bill does it say when the money is to be paid to the States for passing on to councils. There is also no statement that the money will be forwarded in one lump sum. I ask the Minister for an assurance that the transfer will be in one lump sum and I also ask for some type of statement as to when we can expect this transfer to take place. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.22) —The payment arrangements will be similar to those in 1985-86, that is, one lump sum payment, possibly followed by a small adjustment later in the year. The notification by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the estimated factor to the States is required to occur before 31 August. I refer to clause 5 of the legislation. This triggers the payment process which occurs in late September or early October, depending on how quickly the States submit the proposed allocation of funds between councils. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.23) —I have two questions on clause 8. If there is an underpayment to the States in a particular year, will the catch-up paid by the Commonwealth be distributed as part of the overall funding for the following year or will there be some other type of method of distribution? Secondly, if the estimated factor proves too large and the States have to pay some money back, will that amount be subtracted from the pool available to councils in the following year or will councils have to make a special payment back to the States? Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.23) —Senator Vigor asked when, if the Commonwealth underpays the States, the catch-up will be made. It will be made within the payment of the following year. Clause 8 (3) makes that clear. If the Commonwealth's initial payment is too great, clause 11 (a) requires a State to pay each local government its full allocation for the year. It is up to the State to determine whether and how it recoups the overpayment. It is not up to the Commonwealth. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(12.24) —My last set of questions deals with clause 9, particularly sub-clauses (2), (10) and (11). In sub-clause (2) (b), there is reference to `a standard not lower than the average standard of other local governing bodies in the State'. Is it the Government's intention to stop the local government grants commissions doing separate sums for different categories of councils, as happens now in some States? Is `average' in the clause to be taken in the strict sense of mean values? Could it also be interpreted as median values; or is there some other sort of weighting which would be applied in these cases? Let me point out the reason for this question. We have problems if we start to include very large councils such as Adelaide City Council in amongst all the councils in South Australia. That is why I am asking this question. What is the significance of 1 July 1991 in sub-clauses (10) and (11) and what do those sub-clauses allow to happen in fact beyond what is allowed in sub-clauses (1) to (9)? I really fail to understand what sub-clauses (10) and (11) add and it would be nice for the Minister to give us some enlightenment on that matter. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(12.26) —I will try. The word `average' in clause 9 is a matter which will be clarified and has to be clarified in the principles that are to be developed by each State and approved by the Commonwealth Minister. As Senator Vigor implied, I think, we are geographically and demographically a diverse country, even when comparing States, and the principles in each State, because of the different nature of local government, will also vary. That is a matter that has to be determined in each State and by each State. He asked what is the significance of 1 July 1991 in sub-clauses (10) and (2) of clause 9 and what do these sub-clauses allow to happen beyond what is allowed by sub-clauses (1) to (9). The date sets the maximum time by which the principles under clause 9 are to come into effect. In other words, it stipulates the length of the phasing-in period. The drafting may not be clear, as drafting is often not clear to people like me, but that is the purpose of it, and I am assured that that is what happens. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a third time. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That the order relating to the luncheon suspension of the sitting this day be varied to enable the Senate to sit between 12.45 p.m. and 2 p.m. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.28) —The Senate is debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. It is one of those very brief pieces of legislation contained on a single sheet of printed paper and it seeks only to repeal section 33 of the principal Act. It is unusual because the principal Act is named as an interim protection Act precisely because it was offered to us as an interim Act to fill a gap and to offer immediate protection. It contained a sunset clause which meant that it would cease to have effect, I believe, on 25 June or some date close to that. What the Government has done is not seek to extend the sunset clause or to renew it but to repeal it, and this amendment, if it passed, would convert the original Act, which was an interim Act, into a permanent Act, an Act which would continue to operate as an Act without a sunset clause for ever. The Opposition opposed the principal Act when it came before the Parliament as a Bill, and we opposed it for reasons which we set out then at length and which are valid today. With the Government simply seeking to repeal the sunset clause and to make this into a permanent piece of legislation, our opposition continues, and the Opposition will continue to oppose the legislation for the reasons we set out last time. Those reasons include sloppy drafting in the legislation, unnecessary encroachment upon State responsibilities-and I will come back to that in the Committee stage-unfettered discretions which were given to the Minister, and the potential for frivolous and vexatious claims to be made pursuant to the Act. The Opposition makes clear now, as we did previously, that we do not oppose the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. We do not oppose, as it were, the purposes which lie behind legislation of this kind, but we are not happy with the approach that the Government has taken to the legislation, and this of course is one of the valid roles of opposition. We think the Government, in pursuit of what might be a reasonable end, has used means which are inappropriate. We are concerned still by the substantial matters which led us to oppose this legislation in the first place. One of the most important objections is, of course, that it seeks to override legislation in the States which already seeks to protect Aboriginal heritage. This has been pointed out by State Premiers and, I believe, Western Australian Ministers who say that they already have in their States legislation which seeks to protect Aboriginal heritage and which will be overriden by this Act. I refer to section 9 of the principal Act which contains provisions which we believe give the Minister enormous power to make declarations which would override State or Territory legislation. We will be moving in the Committee stage some amendments-if we are unsuccessful in opposing the second reading of the Bill-which would seek to make what we think are more realistic arrangements for the operation of this Bill. I will be arguing these in Committee, but I might just advert to a couple of them because they are very important matters. For a start, as the Bill is drafted it seems to us that, to take an extreme case, an urban Aboriginal living in Redfern might, under section 9, be able to make an application to the Minister in relation to a heritage matter in the Kimberleys. Section 9 simply says that `where the Minister receives an application made orally or in writing by or on behalf of an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals' seeking certain things, the Minister may then do certain things. There is no requirement for the application made by Aboriginals to be necessarily relevant to the area about which the application is being made. We will move in the Committee stage amendments to try to tidy up some of these things. I do not wish to hold up the Senate unduly, but I reiterate that the opposition we had to this legislation when it came in first as an interim measure remains. We understand that some of the provisions have been opposed by most of the States, by the Northern Territory, by interested industry groups including the Australian Mining Industry Council, by the National Farmers Federation, by the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, by the Australian Archaeological Association and by many Aboriginal communities. Because we think that the principal Act is an inappropriate vehicle to achieve the goals, however desirable, we will oppose the removal of the sunset clause, which is the sole purpose of the Bill before the Senate. If we are unsuccessful in that, we will move amendments in the Committee. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(12.35) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill involves the continuation of the Bill we passed two years ago. The operation of the Act has been a major disappointment to Aboriginal people around Australia. However, in my consultations with the various communities there seems to be no option other than to support the entrenchment of this legislation. It is not so much that the communities feel that the legislation is a problem but the way in which it has been handled. It is as part of a much more general situation that this legislation has to be seen. Proposals floating around the corridors of power to amend other land rights Acts-for example, those in the Northern Territory-indicate where this Government may be heading on this issue. The Australian Democrats have made it very clear that, minimal as the rights of Aboriginal people are, they cannot be taken away or modified. That is totally unacceptable to us. The only independent inquiry in the Northern Territory on the operation of land rights has recommended, as have all inquiries, the retention of the veto on exploration of mining rights. It is interesting to quote what Mr Justice Toohey said in his report `Seven Years On': There are compelling economic arguments in favour of ensuring certainty for those investing and engaging in mineral exploration and development. Equally compelling are arguments based on the principle that Aboriginals should control activity on their land which could have significant economic, social and spiritual consequences. The arguments, although proceeding from different premises, are not necessarily or always in conflict. Material and other advantages can flow to those groups permitting mining on their land. I will spell out in a little more detail a recent interesting exercise. People approach this Bill in a way that is modified greatly by what might be public opinion on this matter. I will look first at the statistics on mining exploration in Australia. Anybody who studies these will have noticed that in 1983-84 the statistics showed that money spent on mining exploration for minerals in the Northern Territory was down by a huge 60 per cent from the previous year to approximately $12m. These statistics, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, were subsequently revised, as statistics often are, but in this case the revision was not minor. It was so major that the Bureau took the trouble to publicise the changes. The $12m in 1983-84 turned out to be twice that amount-$24m-or just 5 per cent less than in the previous year. That 5 per cent drop is significant because there was an overall 5 per cent drop in mining exploration across Australia. In other words, the drop in the Northern Territory was identical with the national drop. I suspect that the Department involved knew that before the figures were released. A statement has been made by a senior person within the Bureau that those figures were available prior to the release of the $12m figure. This seems to be part of the general softening up of the community for a change in policy. For example, on 4 March, about three weeks before the ABS admitted its mistake, Senator Gareth Evans announced Cabinet approval of changes to the Act to which I have referred. He said that the reason was the `log-jam in the processing of exploration applications in the Northern Territory'. He went on: There is no doubt that the present Northern Territory Land Rights Act and some of the administrative arrangements under it, have contributed significantly to the slowdown in exploration activity in the Territory in recent years, although other factors-the decline in international commodity prices, and the Labor Government's uranium policy-have been equally if not more important. These inaccurate, possibly false, figures have had a considerable effect on Government Aboriginal land rights policy and Aboriginal rights in general and have been used by the mining companies to lobby the Government. The ABS has said that it is embarrassed over the inaccurate figures but lays the blame firmly at the door of the mining companies. As I have pointed out, a spokesman for the ABS has claimed that the anomaly was noticed before the publication of those figures, but when the Bureau checked with the mining companies who supplied the figures it was told that they were correct. The ABS in Darwin had a different story. It said that the difference was due to anomalies of late returns from the mining companies. The implications of that one event are obvious. To back up this misinformation and its political use, parts of the Press have claimed that the vast majority of Australians do not want uniform land rights legislation or the extension of Aboriginal rights in any shape or form-part of which is included in this legislation. This has now become a bit of received wisdom around this place. This view, which rests on extraordinary evidence, threatens any political movement for justice for Aboriginals. One of the grounds for this widespread view almost certainly is the confidential report by Australian Nationwide Opinion polls, commissioned by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and finalised in January 1985. The existence of the survey was first made public in August 1985 after the 64-page report was leaked to the Australian newspaper. Under the front page headline `Few Support Aboriginal Land Rights', the Australian concluded from the survey findings that less than one in five Australians supported the granting of land rights to Aboriginals and that 61 per cent agreed with the argument that land rights would be unfair to the non-Aboriginal population. Over the following weeks the one-in-five finding entered Australia's political myths. In September, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding, lamented the negative attitude of white Australians. He said: It was found that many saw Aboriginals as a privileged group and less than 20 percent had strong feelings of support for Aboriginal people and their aspirations. There was a widespread view that everybody should be treated equally. Although it has been largely unquestioned, there was reason for caution about the interpretation of the data, even as it was presented in the Australian newspaper. The table reproduced on the front page from the ANOP survey disclosed that only 18 per cent of the sample strongly supported land rights, but this was far from indicating that everybody else was opposed. Only 24 percent were strongly opposed. The majority-52 per cent-were, to quote from the ANOP, `intending to opposition or in favour'. That is an imprecise and incredibly confusing category if there ever was one. The ANOP saw the poll as indicating a very large middle group, not strongly committed either way. That was the correct interpretation. The Australian's headline was the subject of complaint to the Australian Press Council, which found that the headline `Few Support Aboriginal Land Rights' was misleading. I quote from the judgment of the Press Council: In the largest group of 52 per cent is an unknown number of people who support land rights with reservations, and who cannot be dismissed, as the paper's argument goes, as people who do not support land rights. One might have thought that the striking result of the poll was that the majority of Australians did not have strong views one way or another. What I find incredibly difficult to understand is how the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Clyde Holding, allowed a wholly negative interpretation to go unchallenged, since he has had a copy of the confidential poll longer than anyone else in this country. The Australian chose not to report that in this poll 56 per cent of the respondents agreed with the proposition that land rights will help Aboriginals keep their culture and help the survival of the race-56 per cent, not reported. Fifty-two per cent agreed that Aboriginals should get land rights because it is important for their traditional way of life-52 per cent, not reported. Questioned on the level of assistance provided to Aboriginals by the Federal Government, 42 per cent believed that too much was provided, but a larger number, 44 per cent, thought that the existing level was about right or too little. I ask any fair person, looking at that survey as a whole, to ask: What was going on in the Australian newspaper, and what was going on in this Government that it used the survey in the way that it did to allow a type of racist operation to get going in this country immediately afterwards. Senator Peter Baume —Do you think that we need to change the words `land rights' and to make it `secure land tenure' or something? Senator MACKLIN —I do not believe that we should change the term `land rights' at all. That is what we are talking about. Let us go back a little over what we are talking about. For those people who last night saw the video with regard to apartheid and those people who saw the declaration today, on television, of the state of emergency in South Africa, I say let us not get too pompous in this country about how good we are and about what goes on in South Africa. If they have watched television, let them listen to this and try to work out whether this is a description of the types of things that they have been seeing on television about South Africa, or whether this is a description of what goes on in Australia. It is the latter. It is a description given by an Aboriginal woman, Helen Boyle, and I shall read it in full: Every year you get the police going round causing a riot, the last one being at the Princeton Hotel. I happened to be in the middle of things that night because there was an Aboriginal band playing, one of the top Australian bands at that time, and the hotel was just packed out with Aboriginal people, and everyone was feeling very good about being there. Just before closing time, I left and as I walked from the hotel to the street where my car was parked, about eight vans pulled up. There were a lot of cops inside, and they started running out with their batons up in the air, hitting people on the head and whacking them around and putting them into the police wagons. My friend had been with me all the time, but she stayed behind in the hotel. When she put her head outside to see what all the commotion was, she got a baton smacked in her face. She lost two top teeth and the bottom teeth were forced through her bottom lip. She had to have stitches. There was another 16-year-old girl who was there who had a miscarriage, because she got whacked in the stomach with a baton. It was all provoked and instigated by the cops-some of the vans that were there had come from twenty miles away. They had a crown sergeant there, who is in charge of ten police stations, directing the whole thing, but none of them ever have their numbers on them, so you can never identify any of them. A lot of Aboriginal people were charged under the Intoxicated Persons Act. There were some Aboriginal women there who don't drink, who called the Aboriginal medical service doctor to take blood samples which, of course, came out negative. They were then threatened with charges of prostitution. So they had to accept the charge of being drunk. They were then locked up. Most of the people picked up were women, and they were sexually abused in terms of the cops putting their hands up their dresses, and their batons up their dresses and that sort of thing, and feeling them when they did the searches. Then, not content with that, the police went to Redfern housing company and ran through there; people who were asleep in their beds were arrested and charged with causing a disturbance to the peace. They ran dogs through there as well, which were going around biting everybody. That is a description of something that happened in the major city of this country. In terms of this legislation, we should understand that since the British invasion of this country Aboriginal people have been subjected to wholesale massacre and disease; they have been left to die; they have been inflicted with various policies of paternalism and forced assimilation. They were not even granted rights to be people until 1967. On every index-health, mortality, employment, income, housing, education, welfare, and so on-they suffer appallingly in comparison with the white population. At Palm Island, in my own State of Queensland, there are 150 government houses and about 2,200 Aboriginal people. There are up to 37 people in one house. The houses are windowless and are built of asbestos. The people who are not in those houses are in shanties. The black unemployment rate on the island is 87 per cent. There are virtually no facilities, apart from the council-run beer canteen. The 315 sons and daughters of the island are taught next to nothing of their culture because they are in a State school and that is not permitted. As far back as 1837, a British House of Commons report declared that the Aboriginal people have a `plain and sacred right to their land'. Every small gain that has been made since that time has been made at the cost of enormous effort on the part of the Aboriginal communities themselves and under a constant and mounting threat from powerful vested interests in this country that seek to overturn the small gains that are made. Australia's history has been based on the intentional and unintentional destruction of Aboriginal traditional society and culture. There have been massacres. Aboriginals have been used as slave labour. They have been pressed into slave prostitution. Six times as many Aboriginals as whites are in our prisons now, although they are only one per cent of the population. The life expectancy of Aboriginals today is 20 years less than that of whites. So the list goes on. Then we come to this Bill-this innocuous Bill, this Bill that seeks to do nothing other than what is done for every white religious person, and that is to protect their sacred heritage. And we have whingers; and we have back-downs. Do honourable senators realise that any group of white people in this country can buy a piece of land and erect on it a church, and it instantly becomes a sacred site for the purposes of the law? Do they realise that the offence of desecration in some States can attract a sentence of 14 years in gaol? What do we have in this legislation? It is a fine of $2,000. Will there ever come a time in this country when the white population will look at themselves and look at what is happening in South Africa, and ask: If the Aboriginal population had been in the majority in this country, would the situation in Australia be identical to the one in South Africa? What we would have to answer, if we were to answer truthfully, would be yes. We do not have beatings, we do not have murders, we do not have detentions, we do not have those types of shanty towns on that scale; but we do have the slow, purposeful, unrelenting strangulation of Aboriginal culture. It is very unfortunate that we cannot have an Aboriginal in this place to constantly remind us white Australians of these matters. The Australian Democrats will support this Bill because we cannot do anything else. But in looking at the way it has been implemented, and at the abrogation of the responsibility which was handed to the Federal Government in the 1967 referendum, one wonders whether this Bill is not merely a drop in the ocean. I plead with the Government to look again at the decisions it made during the last election campaign and to look at its policy. It should seek to make, in this area, some of those hard decisions which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was talking about the other night. It has been well illustrated in the figures on mining and in the poll to which I have referred that there are massive forces in this country ranged against the Aboriginal people and the very little they are able to do in defending themselves. This Government has the moral and political responsibility to take up that fight. It is not a matter for States; it is a matter, as the people of Australia said, for the nation. We do not look at South Africa and say: `Is it happening in Natal, in Cape Town, or in the Transvaal?' We look at South Africa and say: `It is happening in South Africa'. I, for one, do not want people around the world looking at my country and saying: `It is all very well for you to talk, but why do you not do something yourselves?'. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(12.58) —We are debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill 1986. This legislation flows from earlier legislation introduced and passed in 1984 which was at that time described to us as interim by nature. At that time, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), in his second reading speech, said: It is an interim measure which will be replaced by more comprehensive legislation dealing with Aboriginal land rights and heritage protection. He went on to say: As evidence of the Government's intention to legislate more comprehensively, the Bill before the House is expressed to have effect for no more than two years from the date of its commencement. In other words, the original legislation was interim legislation. The Holding uniform land rights legislation was to be introduced within the two-year life of the original legislation. It was Holding de facto land rights legislation. That uniform land rights legislation has not come to pass, because, in my view, of a political judgment by the Government that it would be unpopular and politically unwise to pursue the introduction of land rights in that way. That is not to say that steps have not been made in terms of land rights in Australia, notwithstanding the hypocritical statement that was made by the Premier of Western Australia during the last State election. He said: `I will resign as Premier if land rights are introduced by a Labor government in Western Australia'. Immediately following the election, Mr Holding announced the allocation of $100m for the purpose of purchasing land. The only difference between that style of approach and the acquisition of land under a uniform land rights is the type of title. The benefits which go with the land, for all intents and purposes, are exactly the same. The intention of this legislation is to create uniform land rights. The effect of its application will be, in every practical sense, to place in the hands of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs almost unfettered power to implement unilaterally the setting aside of land exclusively for the use and benefit of Aboriginal Australians. The legislation overrides all other State legislation. To begin to understand the extent and reach of this legislation it is useful to look first at the definitions. By definition, the area to be included in this legislation applies to all land within Australia and its external Territories and the territorial sea of Australia, and the territorial sea of our external Territories and of course the sea and the continental shelf of Australia. There are no exclusions. All land and sea is included whatever its tenure and irrespective of what title is held and by whom. Naturally, this includes pastoral land, farming land, mining land, rural land, urban land and any type of metropolitan land. One might ask what the definition is of `significant Aboriginal area'. It means an area of land in Australia or in or beneath Australian waters; water in Australia; or an area of Australian waters, being an area of particular significance to Aboriginals in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. Having learnt that `significant Aboriginal area' includes all land and water within or without exclusion over which Australia has jurisdiction, we look to see what `Aboriginal tradition' means. We are told in the 1984 Bill that `Aboriginal tradition' means: . . . the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of Aboriginals generally or of a particular community or group of Aboriginals, and includes any such traditions, observances, customs or beliefs relating to particular persons, areas, objects or relationships. The definition is so wide that it encompasses anything that any Aboriginal has ever done for whatever reason and for whatever time. It is the breadth of those definitions which gives me the greatest anxiety about this legislation. As I said, it is de facto legislation. By those definitions, virtually any piece of land can be set aside unilaterally by the Minister. In fact, it can be as the result of a request not only in writing but also by a telephone call. I now touch on one matter which is of some significance to me and that is the concept of the Aboriginal lifestyle prior to 1788. It was Professor Radcliff-Brown's anthropological studies that were the premise upon which the Northern Territory land rights legislation was based. Since then, a very well world-recognised anthropologist, Dr Gumbar, has disputed the findings of Professor Radcliff-Brown: Anthropologists are really quite a cloistered bunch. They are sometimes not amenable to new ideas. The reason I raised these matters of conflict is to demonstrate the absurdity of providing `Aboriginal tradition' with such a wide definition as to allow every real and perceived notion of the ordinary functioning of the pre-1788 Aboriginal lifestyle to be embraced when some of these rather quaint notions are the conceived notions of poor, incompetent anthropological assumptions. I quote Lesley Maynard, the anthropologist for the northern region of the National Parks and Wildlife Service in New South Wales. She gives an example from the Pilbara region of Western Australia. She says: I have been doing some work on prehistoric rock engravings at waterholes. There are also artefacts scattered and these cover the general range of domestic occupation and even more interesting there are smooth abraded patches on the same outcrops as the engravings and these have been used for grinding seeds. As if people were carrying out very, very domestic behaviour. It's undoubtedly women who were grinding the seeds and here you have these engravings around the periphery-this is a little contradictory to a general tendency to regard rock art as religious, set aside, sacred. If there is rock art there is goodness, it must be a sacred site, a special place, a set aside place. She concludes: And I think that would indicate something about the role of rock art in the prehistoric culture that made it. As Pat Vinycombe of the University of Western Australia stated: It's important to stress that not all Aboriginal art, now or long ago, is necessarily sacred. As Lesley Maynard has found sometimes pictures have been found right next to living sites and seen to be part of everyday life, not hidden away in secret or sacred places. I labour the question of the distinction drawn by the various anthropologists and archaeologists of the notion of what is mystic, sacred or religious or simply a drawing, doodling or evidence of a past presence to show not only how embracing the definition is, but also the wide interpretation that many experts would put on it as to what represents tradition within the meaning of this Bill. I do not argue with the fact that there are sites, quite sacred, that have a religious significance in nature to the Aboriginal community, but I do argue that we must clearly understand, as much as we pretend to understand, the lifestyle, the cultural activities and the things of religious significance of the Aboriginal community prior to 1788. It is an evolving understanding, an evolving knowledge, and we ought not set in concrete our definitions and our beliefs of what is intrinsic, and what was intrinsic to the Aboriginal community prior to 1788. For that reason, as I said in 1984, I have grave reservations about the legislation. In my view this legislation provides for de facto land rights and its extent, its reach, goes far beyond that given as its reason for being in the second reading speech. In my view it is a substitute by Clyde Holding for his uniform land rights which he was unable to have passed through his Caucus or through the Cabinet. It is with a great deal of reservation that I see this legislation now to be no longer an interim measure, as it was in 1984. Now the sunset provision, section 33, is to be removed; the legislation will now become permanent on the statute books. In my view a great many areas in this legislation ought at least be amended if it is to have the function claimed by the Minister to be its purpose. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.08) —I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate. I understand that Senator Peter Baume has indicated the Opposition's opposition to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill. I understand some of the points he made. He sought clarification on who can make an application. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has undertaken to consult with the Aboriginal people who have traditional affiliations in this area. He talked about overriding the States but it is my information that Premier Burke, whose State I suppose has had the most difficulty in this area, said in a letter to the Minister on 11 April that there is no reason at all why the respective State and Federal agencies cannot co-operate under their respective pieces of legislation. Senator Crichton-Browne expressed his well-known and often expressed opposition to this sort of legislation. We do not accept at all that it is land rights in disguise. Any declaration in this area is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Declarations do not affect the root title. Compensation is payable to a landholder whose rights are adversely affected. To suggest that we tried to freeze Aboriginal tradition in pre-1788 days is nonsense. But I understand Senator Crichton-Browne's strong objection, and I am aware that nothing I say will make any difference to it. I thank honourable senators for their contribution. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 24 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Black, J. R. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McKiernan, J. P. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Reynolds, M. Cook, P. F. S. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Crowley, R. A. Ryan. S. M. Devlin, R. Siddons, J. R. Elstob, R. C. Tate, M. C. Evans, Gareth Vigor, D. B. Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Georges, G. Zakharov, A. O. Alston, R. K. R. Knowles, S. C. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Michael Messner, A. J. Baume, Peter Newman, J. A. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R. Brownhill, D. G. C. Puplick, C. J. G. Carrick, Sir John Reid, M. E. (Teller)Collard, S. J. Townley, M. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Vanstone, A. E. Durack, P. D. Walters, M. S. Hamer, D. J. Watson, J. O. W. Hill, R. Withers, R. G. Gietzelt, A. T. Kilgariff, B. F. Morris, J. MacGibbon, D. J. McIntosh, G. D. Boswell, R. L. D. Cooney, B. Jessop, D. S. Ray, Robert Chaney, F. M. Aulich, T. Short, J. R. Sibraa, K. W. Teague, B. C. Maguire, G. R. Sheil, G. Colston, M. A. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative. The Bill. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.16) —The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Amendment Bill 1986 is a very simple Bill and the amendments which have been drawn by the Opposition are listed as just one large amendment. It would not be my intention to move the whole of the amendment which has been circulated but to move initially that proposed new clause 3a be inserted and subsequently move amendments to each of the clauses in order to keep the debate in good order. I move: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: `Interpretation `3a. Section 3 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after the definition of `Federal Court' in sub-section (1) the following definition: `` `interested Aboriginal' or `interested group of Aboriginals' means, in relation to a significant Aboriginal area, an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals, as the case may be, to whom that area is of particular significance in accordance with Aboriginal tradition;''. The purpose of our first amendment is to introduce the definition of an interested Aboriginal or an interested group of Aboriginals into the principal Act. We do this with the genuine intention of trying to assist with the operation of this legislation and to achieve what we think is the Government's aim and in so doing to hose down what we think are some of the concerns in the community about the way in which the Act might operate. We would envisage that such an Aboriginal, or group of Aboriginals, as we would seek to have included in our definition would be people who have a special interest in an area because it is of particular significance to them in accordance with Aboriginal tradition. For example, if there were an area of heritage in the Kimberleys, as I have mentioned, we would want someone who had some interest in that area to be the kind of person who could take action under this legislation. This amendment ties in with amendments we intend to move later particularly in relation to section 9 (1) (b) of the principal Act to require an applicant under that sub-section to be an interested Aboriginal or to be part of an interested group of Aboriginals for the purpose of making an application. We believe that the making of emergency declarations as envisaged under section 9 of the principal Act should be made only where the applicant is an interested Aboriginal or an interested group of Aboriginals. Otherwise we are concerned that this power might give rise to frivolous or vexatious claims. I remind honourable senators that under the operation of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 there was an unintended consequence when an Aboriginal community acquired a property known as Beetaloo. Another group of Aboriginals immediately made a claim for that property under the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. That claim which was made on Beetaloo would have had the effect of depriving the Aboriginal leaseholder of his interest. We are trying to make sure that those who make applications under this legislation will be people who have some interest in the heritage. I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate that we are not terribly keen to see, for example, an urban Aboriginal from Redfern, who might be a member of an Aboriginal legal service and who has no association with a Western Australian heritage area, being the person making an application under section 9 of the principal Act. However, that is precisely what could happen as the Act is presently written. Unless the definition of an interested Aboriginal or interested group of Aboriginals is included in the legislation this situation will continue. We believe that an emergency declaration, such as that provided under the principal Act, is a very powerful instrument and that it should be able to be used only in appropriate and limited circumstances. We think one of the limitations that should be placed on it is that those who seek emergency declarations should be those who have an interest. Other than the interest of being an Aboriginal Australian he should be an Aboriginal Australian who has a particular interest in the area or in the heritage which is the subject of the application. Our experience in the Northern Territory has certainly indicated that there are interested Aboriginals for most areas of heritage or most objects which we could identify. I do not think any claims under the Land Rights Act have failed because people who are interested under the quite tightly drawn provisions of the Northern Territory Act cannot be found. We think it is reasonable to ask that those are the people who make a complaint if they wish to activate section 9 of the principal Act. For those reasons I ask for support for what we have put forward as a reasonable and reasoned definition to be added to the principal Act. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.21) —The Government cannot accept the amendment moved by Senator Baume. I think the Opposition is drawing a very long bow when it raised the possibility of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) or any other Minister not consulting with such Aboriginal groups as those which Senator Baume referred to in his amendment. He has given an undertaking to do so but I think it is a bit ludicrous to give the example he did that a Minister would make a declaration on an application by someone from the Redfern Aboriginal Legal Service about an area in Western Australia without consulting with the Aboriginal groups which are interested parties, as I think the definition that Senator Baume wants put in the Act would describe them. The Government does not accept the amendment for all the reasons that Mr Holding has given in the past and the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, has given in this place. We believe that there is adequate protection in the legislation. In this case over legislation ends up not protecting anyone but results only in paralysis of action. The Minister has given undertakings and has indicated by his actions that he will consult with interested groups. I think he will continue to do so. The possibility of the hair-raising example that Senator Baume gave is not a sensible one. We cannot accept the amendment. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.23) —I understand that the Minister for Community Services (Senator Grimes) has said that the Government will not support the Opposition's amendment. I point out to the Minister that the legislation, as drawn, makes it perfectly possible for the kind of situation I envisage to occur. Clause 9 requires only that the Minister receive an application made orally or in writing on behalf of any Aboriginal or any group of Aboriginals. It requires only that he be satisfied that the area is a significant Aboriginal area and that it is under serious and immediate threat of injury or desecration. If the Minister is willing to give assurances that he will take the extra step of consulting with interested Aboriginals there is absolutely no logic, apart from the logic of political numbers, to indicate any reason why the Government will not accept this amendment. I understand that the Government will not accept it. I can count the same as the Minister can. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3b. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.24) —I did not seek to divide the Committee on proposed new clause 3a. I move my second amendment: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: ``3b. Section 5 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: Application of Act ``5. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), this Act extends to every external Territory. ``(2) This Act does not extend to a State or Territory unless there is in force a declaration under sub-section (3) in respect of that State or Territory. ``(3) The Minister may declare, in respect of a specified State or Territory, that he is satisfied that there is not, under the laws of that State or Territory, effective protection of significant Aboriginal areas or objects from the threat of injury or desecration. ``(4) A declaration under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Gazette. ``(5) Sections 48 (other than paragraphs (1) (a) and (b) and sub-section (2)), 49 and 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 apply to a declaration under sub-section (3) as if in those sections references to regulations were references to declarations, references to a regulation were references to a declaration and references to repeal were references to revocation. ``(6) Declarations under sub-section (3) shall not be taken to be statutory rules within the meaning of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903. ``(7) Section 5 of the Evidence Act 1905 applies to a declaration under sub-section (3) as that section applies to an order made by a Minister.''. The second amendment I have moved seeks to give a Federal context to this legislation. This legislation operates in a federation made up of the States and the Commonwealth. We believe that powers in matters relating to Aboriginal Australia are co-equal and shared powers. I believe that Senator Macklin has misstated, as have many people in this place, the effects of the 1967 referendum. The referendum did not lead to the removal of State responsibility or State authority in the area of Aboriginal Australia. It merely allowed the Commonwealth to move in and act in the same area. We wish to recognise the existence of complementary State legislation which may be equally capable of protecting Aboriginal heritage and culture as the Federal Act, which is being amended today. The Federal Act should not, in those circumstances, necessarily override a State Act or Territory Act unless the Minister makes a declaration-this is what we are seeking to do by way of our amendment-that he is not satisfied that the laws of the State or Territory provide sufficient protection. We are not trying to leave any area unprotected. However, we ask that recognition be given where protection exists under a State or Territory law. The Minister can make a declaration if he thinks the protection is not adequate. We think in that way the Federal Government would be acknowledging and giving some kind of respect to State actions and authority and to the capacity of a State to legislate in these areas. We believe that where the States have legislated, the existing State legislation should be used if it provides sufficient protection. I can see no reason for not agreeing to this amendment. The Minister retains a complete capacity, if he so wishes, to make a declaration that State legislation is insufficient, and in that case this legislation would apply. We think some people who are centralist by nature would rather see this handled on a single national basis. We know what happened when the Australian Labor Party tried to move to institute land rights on a single national basis. All we are seeking to do here, as an earnest of good will, is to recognise that some States and Territories have, indeed, moved to protect Aboriginal heritage and, where they have such laws, those laws should continue to apply. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.28) —We do not accept this amendment because, as Senator Peter Baume knows, this legislation is a form of Commonwealth appeal under the Constitution of the Commonwealth for those who feel that they are not being effectively looked after by the States. The mere fact that there appears to be effective legislation on the statute books in the States is not enough. That legislation should be applied. If a State government has what anyone would consider respectable legislation but does not use it or does not apply it, there still should be the capacity for individuals or groups in those States to come to the Commonwealth. If a State has effective legislation and if it is providing effective protection, obviously there will not be any applications from that State. If a State has such legislation and chooses, for whatever reasons-political or ideological-not to apply it, then we believe that this legislation should apply. We think that this is in the spirit of federation. It is certainly in the spirit of the constitutional change brought about by the 1967 referendum. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.29) —I think it is desirable that we circulate the Hansard record of this debate to everyone we know in the States and let them determine, from what Senator Grimes and I have said, whether or not they agree that State interests are being adequately recognised. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3c. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.30) —I move: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: ``Emergency declarations in relation to areas ``3c. Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-paragraph (1) (b) (i) `and'; (b) by omitting from sub-paragraph (1) (b) (ii) `desecration,' and substituting `desecration;'; and (c) by inserting after sub-paragraph (1) (b) (ii) the following new sub-paragraphs: `(iii) that it would be in the public interest that he make a declaration under this sub-section,'. Our original amendment sought to insert sub-paragraph (iii) which began with the words `that the applicant is an interested Aboriginal'. That sub-paragraph was consequential on an amendment that has been determined and there is no point in seeking to insert those words. The second limb of the original amendment is contained in what was sub-paragraph (iv). I suggest to the Clerk that sub-paragraph (iv) should now become sub-paragraph (iii). Sub-paragraph (iii) will now read: `That it would be in the public interest that he make a declaration under this sub-section,'. I indicate to the Committee that certain other of our amendments that have been circulated stand or fall on this amendment as well. We introduce here the concept that the Minister should give consideration to the public interest before making a declaration under section 9 (1) (b) of the principal Act. We believe that that section of the Act, which provides for emergency declarations, is, as I have said, a very powerful tool, and it should be made only where the Minister believes that it is in the public interest so to do. While the term `public interest' is somewhat vague, it appears in numerous pieces of legislation, it has been subject to judicial interpretation, and it is understood. However, putting aside the legalese and matters of judicial interpretation, people understand that what we are asking the Minister to do is to take into account the interests of the community as a whole, the interests of all the parties who might be involved, when he is making a decision as to whether or not he should issue an emergency declaration under section 9. He has to weigh the importance of the application by an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals with the public interest as he sees it. We believe that all the interests involved should be weighed together by the Minister before a decision is made as in some circumstances-I imagine not very often-he may wish to determine that the public interest is better served by not making the declaration. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.32) —I am advised by the adviser, to use a dreadful pun, that emergency declarations are in fact holding operations for 30 days. This procedure has been applied only once and that was in the case of an object that was coming up for auction. It has not been applied to areas. Certainly, the public interest comes into play after the 30 days and the following sections of the Act are used to ensure that the public interest is considered. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) does not see that an amendment is necessary in respect of an immediate emergency 30-day operation to prevent damage or something drastic happening. I believe that the Minister has administered this legislation very sensibly. I think any Minister will do the same. We do not believe that an amendment of this type is necessary in respect of the 30-day period. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3d. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.33) —I move: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: ``Other declarations in relation to areas 3d. Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from sub-paragraph (1) (b) (i) ``and''; (b) by inserting after paragraph (4) (e) the following paragraph: ``(ea) the amount of compensation which should be paid to any person whose proprietary or pecuniary interests would be adversely affected by the making of a declaration;''. Again, parts of our original amendment have been deleted because of decisions that we have already taken. We have deleted sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of our original amendment, which were consequential on amendments already disposed of. Again, this is a perfectly simple proposition. We are looking at ensuring equity for all the parties. The amendment seeks to add a new paragraph to section 10 (4) of the principal Act to give recognition of the need to provide compensation to those parties, whether Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, who may have had their proprietary, pecuniary or other interests curtailed or abridged because of a declaration made by the Minister, whether it is a holding operation or not. Under section 10 (4) (e) the Minister must specify the effects on the interests of those persons when making the declaration. In order to facilitate the compensation of those people for their loss at the earliest opportunity, we seek to include a new clause 3d (c) (ea) requiring the Minister to specify the amount of compensation to be paid to those people whose proprietary or pecuniary interests have been affected. I suggest that there will be people whose interests are affected. It may be decided that it is in the national interest or the public interest to make a declaration, or the Minister may simply decide anyhow to make a declaration. However, if other people have their interests adversely affected and there is a question of compensation, it is only fair that people whose property is adversely affected by the Commonwealth declaration are quickly and properly compensated for their loss. This amendment would facilitate the provision of quick and adequate compensation. For that reason, the amendment should be supported. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.36) —We do not accept the amendment. We believe that to put such an obligation on to, say, the consultant making the decision may well result in grave injustices. We think the legislation as it is, leaving that decision to the Federal Court, is a more effective and better way of doing it. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3g. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.37) —We no longer propose to move our fifth and sixth amendments, earlier amendments having failed. I proceed now to our seventh circulated amendment, concerning the publication and commencement of declarations, and move: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: Publication and commencement of declarations ``3g. Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (1) (b) `on the date of publication in the Gazette or' and substituting `not earlier than 30 days after the date of publication in the Gazette or on'; and (b) by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: `(2a) A notice in writing given under paragraph (2) (a) in relation to a declaration made under sub-section 10 (1) shall include a response to the matters dealt with in the report under sub-section 10 (4) in relation to the area to which that declaration applies.'. The Opposition seeks to provide a period of 30 days within which people likely to be affected by a declaration might make representations to put their case before the declaration comes into effect. I commend that amendment to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.38) —The Government's response is that such an amendment in fact would highlight the area and give people 30 days to wreck it if they so decided. Therefore, we do not think it is a very wise amendment. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3h. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.38) —I move the Opposition's eighth amendment: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause. `3h. Section 16 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted: Statement of decisions of the Minister ``(16). (1) Where the Minister refuses to make a declaration under this Division, the Minister shall cause to be served on the applicant or applicants a written statement setting out his decision and his reasons for that decision, including his findings on any material questions of fact, and referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. ``(2) A written statement under sub-section (1) in relation to a decision of the Minister refusing to make a declaration under sub-section 10 (1) shall include a response to the matters dealt with in the report under sub-section 10 (4) in relation to the area to which the application for the declaration relates.''. The present section 16 allows the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to make what could be a very weak response to those applicants who complain about a likely injury to an Aboriginal area or object. It is typical of what we think is the unnecessary and unfettered power that this Bill proposes to give to the Minister. The Bill actually undermines ministerial accountability to the public and the Parliament by not requiring a more adequate response. Those Aboriginal applicants who take the trouble to complain about potential injury to an area or to an object deserve an adequate response from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. We do not believe it is enough for the Minister merely to be required to take what the Bill calls `reasonable steps' to notify them. We think that they require more than that. The repeal of the present section 16 and the substitution of the Opposition's proposed new section would, in fact, strengthen the hand of genuine applicants. They would then have the full range of administrative law remedies available to them. The Minister would be obliged to give a written statement setting out his decision. He would be obliged to give his reasons for it. He would be obliged to give his findings of fact and any evidence that he had based these decisions on. He would have to give a response to the report as required under section 10 (4) of the Act. Under that proposed new section it would be much easier for the applicant to obtain a review under the provisions of administrative law and to go to court. In fact, it would empower the applicant more adequately than is provided by the present provision. It would help applicants. This is not something to help industry, miners or pastoralists. It is designed to help those who might make applications under the Act. We think it would be in their interests if it were agreed to. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.40) —We think this amendment is unnecessary. In fact, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has given reasons, detailing and fact sheets on every decision he has made. He is required to do so under the administrative law of this country as it exists now. He will continue to do so. We think that this is an unnecessary addition to the legislation and we do not support the amendment. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3j. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.41) —I move the Opposition's ninth amendment: Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause. `Repeal of Division 2 of Part II `3j. Division 2 of Part II of the Principal Act is repealed. The Opposition's amendment seeks to repeal the whole of Division 2 of Part II of the principal Act. This is the Division which deals with declarations made under the Act by officers-not by the Minister-authorised by the Minister. It is a question of delegated authority. The Opposition totally rejects the concept of declarations being made by authorised officers. As I stated earlier, the declarations are very powerful instruments and should be used only in fairly limited circumstances. They should be made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I have been Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I know that there are no occasions on which I could not in an emergency make such a declaration. We think it is inappropriate that these declarations, which would be made only rarely, should be delegated on any occasion to officers. It should not be burdensome for the Minister to make that declaration personally. There will always be a Minister or an Acting Minister available, either at the end of a telephone or obtainable some other way. Modern communication is so quick and direct that I cannot understand why it is not incumbent on the Minister to make the declaration personally. We do not believe that it is appropriate to delegate this authority to officers, no matter how admirable they are. I know that the officers of the Department or Aboriginal Affairs are first rate officers; nevertheless, it is not appropriate to delegate the authority. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.43) —We believe that it is appropriate that the declaration not exceed 48 hours. The one case in which this provision was used involved an object which was to be sold and removed from the country which we thought should not have been sold and removed. We think that the 48-hour restriction, even in these days of modern telephonic communications, is a worthwhile amendment to the Act. Quite frankly, I think that to do what Senator Baume wants to do really is a bit of a farce when we have a situation in which an Acting Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who knows nothing about the matter, would be required to okay something over the phone when it would be much better to wait within that 48 hours until the Minister, who actually knows something about the matter and who can be advised properly and sensibly, can make the final declaration. Proposed new clause negatived. Proposed new clause 3K. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(1.39) —I move the Opposition's last amendment, which seeks to insert a new section 31A to make it clear that appeals lie to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal from any decisions by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for declarations made under section 10 (1) or section 12 (1): Page 1, after clause 3, insert the following new clause: `3K. After section 31 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted in Part IV: Application for review ``31A. (1) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of- (a) a decision of the Minister under sub-section 10 (1) making or refusing to make a declaration; or (b) a decision of the Minister under sub-section 12 (1) making or refusing to make a declaration. ``(2) Where the Minister makes a decision of a kind referred to in sub-section (1) and gives to the person or persons whose interests are affected by the decision notice in writing of the making of the decision, that notice shall include a statement that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision to which the notice relates by or on behalf of the person or persons whose interests are affected by the decision. ``(3) Any failure to comply with the requirements of sub-section (2) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision. ``(4) In sub-section (1), ``decision'' has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.''.'. This amendment covers the same ground as matters I raised earlier in regard to other amendments I moved. It seeks to replace the unfettered discretions of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with more oversight and accountability for administrative decisions that might be taken. In this case we are seeking an opportunity for those people who may be affected by decisions of the Minister, or by the Minister's failure to make a decision, to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As a declaration or the failure to make one could have serious adverse consequences for Aboriginal people, Aboriginal communities or other people affected, it is appropriate that the Tribunal ensure that the Minister act properly in making whatever decision is taken. This is the kind of administrative discretion which goes to the very heart of the setting up and operation of an administrative appeals structure. The Australian Labor Party and Labor senators have supported the administrative appeals structure very strongly. I really cannot see why they would not wish to support this amendment to ensure that the AAT is the correct agency to hear the kinds of appeals to which I have referred in this amendment. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(1.46) —Again, we think this is an unnecessary amendment. Certainly the advisers believe that this legislation does come under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Certainly it comes under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. People can find out further information under the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, declarations are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. While not accepting the amendment, I will refer the matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) for further comment. Proposed new clause negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 6 May, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(1.48) —The Opposition supports the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) and I have nothing further to add. We wish it a speedy passage. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.48) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) is one of those omnibus Bills that are brought in during most sessions of Parliament to make changes to a number of Acts. The changes are supposed to be purely administrative. It is very unfortunate, as sometimes there are a number of small errors in the changes put forward, that such a Bill should be brought forward at a time when the House of Representatives cannot be called upon to agree to sensible amendments that may be made by the Senate. Indeed, one of the matters I want to raise relates to the Public Service Act 1922. As the result of a similar mess at the end of the last session, the Public Service and Statutory Authorities Amendment Bill was put through this House. An amendment to improve the reporting processes, the annual reports that are required from departments and statutory bodies, was moved by me and supported by the Opposition; hence the Senate passed the amendment. The Bill then returned to the House of Representatives, which turned down the amendment because apparently the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, and the Department of Finance were not happy about having more reporting to Parliament and were not happy with some of the figures concerning details of staffing and expenditure within the Public Service being considered in this place. When the Bill came back, a tripartisan agreement was made because certain aspects of the Bill were very important. One such aspect was the Government's ill-fated Priority One program. We agreed, out of deference to the Government's enthusiasm for this program, to pass the legislation on one condition-that the Minister should include in the next statute law amendment Bill a proposal for annual reports to be referred to the Parliament through a committee. In this Bill we have at page 47 an amendment to change the text of the Public Service Act, which at that stage was unable to be changed by the Senate. Sub-section 25 (7) currently states `approved by the Prime Minister and presented to the Parliament'. The Bill seeks to change the wording to `presented to the Parliament by the Prime Minister after approval by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts'. However, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is currently terribly overworked. The guidelines apparently are somewhere in the pipeline and likely to reach the Committee in the next couple of months after the Senate has risen. The Joint Committee on Publications is very interested in taking over this reference. There has been tripartisan agreement amongst the members of the Committee that this should happen, that is, that the process of dealing with annual reports should be handled by the Publications Committee rather than the Public Accounts Committee. I would have, or the Government could have, put forward a simple amendment to achieve this end. But, unfortunately, the House of Representatives is not sitting so we will have to adopt a different procedure. An amendment in my name seeks to change `Joint Committee of Public Accounts' to `Joint Committee on Publications'. There are other provisions in this Bill that should not really be in such a Bill. I refer to the provisions concerning the Audit Act. The Government has decided suddenly that a whole lot of statutory authorities will be able to be audited by auditors from the private sector. That is provided for in this Bill and there have been complaints from the Auditor-General that this will slacken the amount of perusal of those accounts by audit people and the Parliament because private or company auditors do not have the same stringent conditions imposed upon them as are required of the Auditor-General. On pages 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill there are substantive amendments to the Audit Act which I thoroughly support. They make it clear that private company auditors must follow the same types of standards as are set down for the Auditor- General. I believe this should have been the subject of a separate Bill and should have been discussed thoroughly by the Parliament. Because that provision is in this Bill, and I support it, I do not want the Bill to be held up. So, if the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) is willing to give an undertaking, which I understand he is, that the proposal in this very small amendment concerning the reference to a committee will become government policy and will be included in the next statute law amendment Bill, which, I hope, will be brought up when we still have a chance to amend it in case there is a problem, I will not move that amendment in the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister can give us that undertaking and, thereafter, that we can move to refer consideration of those annual reports to the Publications Committee. Apart from that, the Democrats support the Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(1.56) —I thank the Senate for its support for the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 1) 1986. On the understanding that the situation in respect of the Standing Committee on Publications is as Senator Vigor has described it, I am happy to give the undertaking he seeks that the legislation will be appropriately amended in the next session, presumably by the further omnibus Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that is due during that period. I hope, on that basis, that we can proceed rapidly and expeditiously to the passage of this Bill. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(1.57) —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) for his undertaking. On that understanding, we will not move the amendment which has been distributed. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Debate resumed from 7 May, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(1.58) —Mr President, I am reluctant to commence debate on this rather important matter just two minutes before we commence Question Time. I wonder whether the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would prefer me to proceed or whether we can move into Question Time. (Quorum formed) Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 2 p.m., under sessional order, I call on questions without notice. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I do not know whether my failing eyesight is giving me problems. I want to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I suppose he is on his way. We were talking over lunch about the theatre of politics so the late entrance of the Leader of the Government is welcome. I refer the Leader of the Government to today's release of the balance of payments figures for May which put the current account deficit for the 11 months of this financial year at about $13.25 billion and virtually ensure, in the absence of a remarkably good figure for the current month, that the full year result will exceed $14 billion. I remind the Minister that the Minister for Finance, Senator Walsh, said last month that the figure of $14 billion would not be reached. In view of the likely effect that the result will have on the value of the Australian dollar, which hit a new low against other currencies only yesterday, and its implications for the economy as a whole, will the Government urgently reconsider its failure to take more decisive action to restore confidence in the Australian economy? I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the figures demand real action from the Government rather than the vague statements of intention in the Prime Minister's address to the nation, and, for example, will the Government consider, as a matter of urgency, the possibility of an early announcement of definite cuts in government expenditure? Senator BUTTON —As one might anticipate, Senator Chaney has drawn attention to the May balance of payments figures. Those figures are in line with the average for the first four months of 1986. To that extent, they are better than the April figures. I do not want to sound too much like the late Phillip Lynch in describing them. I think it is likely, on the basis of the cumulative figures, that the $14 billion figure will be approached or exceeded. The point of the question is whether the Government will go into top gear or reverse gear-- Senator Chaney —It has to get into gear. Senator BUTTON —Or into any other gears which might seem to Senator Chaney to be appropriate as a result of the publication of these figures and particularly whether the Government will be announcing fiscal cuts in advance of the August Budget. I think it unlikely that we will do that. I think that answers the only specific part of the question that the honourable senator asked me. Senator Chaney —I gave that as an example. Senator BUTTON —Senator Chaney said that he gave that as an example, but I do not see it as my task to conjure up all the other possible examples in response to a question of that kind. I do not hesitate to say that the situation is of continuing concern to the Government. I suspect that it is not a situation which will be redressed by any immediate measures, but it is our responsibility to consider those matters in the light of the May figures, and we will do so. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Leader of the Government for that answer, but I ask: Does that mean that he suspects that there will be no further announcements of any changes in economic policy between now and the August Budget? Senator BUTTON —I do not want my answer to be construed in that way. I think it unlikely; I do not say that it is impossible. Senator ELSTOB —I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to the proposal by the Federal Office of Road Safety. Will the Minister explain what the new four-stage graduated driver licensing concept will involve? Does the Minister agree that, in the national effort to reduce the road toll, much greater emphasis must be placed on drivers acquiring road and car craft skills? Senator GRIMES —The four-stage licensing program involves the provision of a learner's licence at a much younger age-I think in New South Wales and the Northern Territory the age for acquiring the learner's licence is 16-and lengthening the learning stage. So there would be a longer learning period during which people develop driving skills and in which they are supervised by a driver with skills. The second stage extends the period during which the driver can drive without complicating factors such as late night driving, peer group pressure and alcohol, so that people will have a further restricted period of driving. Also, the restrictions are gradually removed as experience is gained. The method used is not the same in each State where it is applied. But the advantage is that it gives a longer learning period for developing simple vehicle control skills. It gives more chance to practise the more difficult skills of looking ahead and anticipating safety conditions. It gives a greater understanding of the risks involved in late night driving, peer group pressure, driving unwisely and drinking. It gives experience with social driving under an alcohol prohibition. It is believed that under these circumstances-I think it has been demonstrated under these circumstances-people are more likely as a result to continue sensible behaviour as adults. Progress in introducing this program has been much faster than envisaged. A low or zero blood alcohol limit for young drivers has been implemented in all States. The Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are now considering changes. The Federal Office of Road Safety has initiated a research project to establish the impact of the scheme and evaluate the scheme. New South Wales has reduced its learner age to 16. Victoria has a package which it will release very soon. Queensland is investigating the concept. The Western Australian and South Australian governments are interested in Federal Office of Road Safety research in these areas. Tasmania is assessing the Victorian scheme, and the Northern Territory has also reduced the licensing age to 16. Gradually, it looks as though we will have consistent laws in this country in this very important area, we will have a graduated driver licensing concept in all States and, hopefully, much better, more skilled and safer drivers. Senator DURACK —I refer the Minister for Finance to the Government's recognition, and his own recognition, of the urgent need to encourage industries which make a significant and growing contribution to Australia's export earnings. Is the Minister aware that the gold mining industry is an industry which is rapidly increasing its contribution to Australia's export earnings and that its contribution now stands at over $600m a year and will, if its present development is not impeded, earn up to $1 billion a year in overseas earnings in the next few years? In those circumstances, will the Government remove the threat to the future development of the gold mining industry as a result of its proposed tax on the income of gold mining, and abandon the current inquiry into such a gold tax? Senator WALSH —The Leader of the Opposition said-I think it was in about August last year-that he would tax gold if he were Prime Minister or Treasurer. I have previously tabled that extract from the West Australian newspaper. But I do not have it with me now, so I cannot give a precise figure. For the record, it should be noted that the Leader of the Opposition has said that there should be a tax on gold and if he were running the country, there would be such a tax. The Government will not make any decisions prior to considering the Gutman report. It could be the case that full corporate taxation might stop some marginal projects from proceeding. Such an objection, of course, would not apply to a rent tax. There is no economically valid argument against a rent tax on gold; absolutely none. Let it also be noted for the record who is the major beneficiary of the tax exempt status of gold. That definition needs some qualification. It is tax exempt. It is exempt from Federal taxes; it is not exempt from States taxes in any State other than Tasmania or in the Northern Territory. Gold income is already taxable, by way of State royalties, in every State except Western Australia. It is, however, totally exempt from Federal Government taxation. The major beneficiary of that total exemption from Federal Government taxation is the United States Treasury. Mines which have United States equity partners remit dividends to the United States. It is a one to one transfer of tax on income which could have been levied in Australia to the United States Treasury. Given also that virtually all, if not all, of the large mines that produce in excess of 80 per cent of the nation's gold have heavy United States equity holdings of around 50 per cent on average, it becomes apparent that something over one-third of the total revenue that would be yielded by a corporate and personal income tax on gold income is being transferred direct to the United States Treasury. If Senator Durack is concerned about current account difficulties and balance of payments problems, that is something he ought also to take into account. Senator BLACK —Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen an Australian Associated Press report yesterday that the Premier of Queensland had defended his Government's administration on the question of the dramatic rise in unemployment in Queensland by attributing this to the onset of winter? If so, can the Minister respond to the Queensland Premier's claim? Senator WALSH —I have seen an AAP telex on this subject which is headed `Sir Joh blames winter for jobless upsurge in Queensland'. A few inches further down the AAP printout it is mentioned that Sir William Knox, the Leader of the Queensland Liberal Party, accused the State Government of refusing to acknowledge the depth of the economic crisis-an accusation which is endorsed by the Federal Government, by the State Opposition in Queensland and, I would have thought, by anybody who looks at the figures on the state of the Queensland economy. It is even more disturbing, I think, that the Premier wakes up one morning, discovers it is winter, and the next day he discovers that winter causes unemployment. The Premier's performance during the rest of the news conference did nothing to alleviate anybody's forebodings about the Premier's state of mind. Indeed, given the rapid outflux of young people of prime working age from Queensland, if the Premier does not step down soon to make way for a younger successor, there will not be anyone left in Queensland who is younger than he; they will all have gone south looking for a job because they cannot get jobs in Queensland. The Premier used to claim for a long time that his excuse for Queensland having the highest, or very close to the highest, unemployment rate in the nation was that people were moving from the south: Dole bludgers and others were moving from the south to bask in the Queensland sun. Whatever truth there may have been in that claim-I do not believe there was ever any truth in it-it is palpably untrue now, because in the last 12 months for which figures are available, more than 5,000 people in the prime working age group of 20 to 34 left Queensland to go south. So the young, fit, potential workers are voting with their feet; they are leaving Queensland and moving south. Before the last Queensland election 14.8 per cent of the nation's jobless lived in Queensland. Now an appalling 19.9 per cent of the country's unemployed are in Queensland, notwithstanding that there is a net outward migration of people of prime working age. Queensland's share of the total labour force is 15.9 per cent and its share of the number of unemployed is 19.9 per cent. Finally, according to the AAP report, the Premier-having assured everybody that his administration was entirely blameless for the 0.6 per cent rise in unemployment in Queensland for May to 9.8 per cent, against the national trend of 7.9 per cent, and disregarding the fact that Queensland's unemployment figures have been appalling in the summer months as well-went on to say that Queensland had produced the best figures for new jobs. I do not know what the best figures were, but if best is highest, he was wrong on that as well. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In an allegedly sophisticated Australia in 1986, is the Minister concerned that an extraordinarily successful and massive fear campaign based on lies, distortion and innuendo has been waged against the proposed Bill of Rights? Is it not true that the real motivation of the groups behind the campaign is to prevent the enactment of that proposed section of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill which would stop gerrymanders, particularly in places such as Queensland? Senator Chaney —You are attacking the Catholic Church. This is disgusting. Senator CHIPP —Not all of the Catholic Church, just part of it. Has the Minister noted in the correspondence he has received-I have received some 25,000 letters on it-that the same kinds of people are opposed to the affirmative action legislation, the fringe benefits tax, the abolition of the free lunch, the introduction of industry-based superannuation and other social justice measures such as the liberalisation of censorship, the relaxation of abortion laws, support for single parents and in vitro fertilisation programs? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Government shares the honourable senator's concern and distaste at the fear campaign which has been waged against the Bill of Rights and I thank him for once again demonstrating his concern for the protection and advancement of civilised community values in this country, as he has so often during his parliamentary career. The distortions have been so immense and so outrageous in what has been said about the Bill of Rights that one simply cannot attribute them to ignorance alone. How can it be ignorance for someone such as Professor Geoffrey Blainey to claim in carefully chosen words, in the same way as his earlier utterances on the immigration question-words carefully chosen to appeal to the lowest common denominator of prejudice in this country-that under the Bill of Rights any Australian can report any other Australian to the Human Rights Commission for an alleged breach of rights, when he must know that the Bill of Rights will not apply to individuals dealing with one another but only to complaints against governments or government agencies? How can it be ignorance for so many people to assert that no rights will continue to exist other than those expressly set out in the Bill, when the legislation expressly and quite unequivocally preserves such other statutory and common law rights as do exist? How can allegations of Star Chamber proceedings credibly be made when precedents for the conciliation of complaints and resolution procedures of the kind almost exactly identical to those contained in this legislation have worked so well for so many citizens making so many kinds of complaints against governments through the agency of the ombudsman, the sex and race discrimination commissioners or similar machinery which operates now in most jurisdictions in Australia, with the spectacular exception, as always, of Queensland? How can it be claimed that we do not need protection for civilised rights when statute law can remove rights at any time, as is constantly being alleged by those opposite and those concerned about some legislation that passes through this and other parliaments from time to time; when the common law is either non-existent when it comes to the protection of these things, or is unavailable or ineffective to override breaches of rights made by governments through the legislature, whether in the area of criminal process, privacy, invasion of free speech or any of the other things which governments, for better or worse motivations, do from time to time? There are a whole variety of motivations evident in those who have waged the campaign to which Senator Chipp referred. In some cases I have no doubt whatsoever that that opposition has been very genuinely motivated through some kind of fuzzy belief that the existing common law is all that we need. In some cases also the opposition is premised on a perhaps understandable cynicism that no legislative measure is likely to be particularly successful in dealing with values of this kind and their protection. Overwhelmingly I have discerned from my correspondence, and I suspect this experience has been the same for just about everyone in this chamber-certainly it has been Senator Chipp's experience-that those who have spoken out most stridently against the Bill of Rights, that is the Bjelke-Petersens, Blaineys, Katharine Wests, Ruxtons, Santamarias, Eric Butlers and, I regret to say, so many of those who sit opposite, have been motivated by an unquestionable mixture of political hostility combined with a very obvious distaste on their part for the very values the Bill of Rights is all about; fair and equal democratic procedures, free speech, assembly rights, fair treatment, fair trial for criminal suspects and in particular equality and non-discrimination for everyone in this country. I believe that the eventual passage of this legislation is as good a test as we could possibly have of the quality of democracy in this country. There will always be those who regard the protection of these kinds of values as a lesser priority than getting the economy right or getting more dollars in their pocket, but most decent Australians, when they think about it, realise just how supremely important these values are. If we succumb to the ravages of what I described the other day as the forces of darkness-the intellectual and cultural Huns, Visigoths and Vandals of this country-and if we let the forces of the far Right call the shots-- Senator Button —Stop attacking me. Senator GARETH EVANS —Whether within the Government or outside it, and if we retreat from coming to grips with these problems and find ourselves intimidated into silence, I believe, with Senator Chipp, that we will have much to hang our heads in shame about as far as future generations of Australians are concerned. Senator FOREMAN —The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs is no doubt aware of the dramatic developments in South Africa that are now occurring. Does the Minister agree that international economic sanctions are now one of the few measures left which can prevent disaster, as argued by the Eminent Persons Group? Will Australia now put more diplomatic pressure on those countries in the Commonwealth still refusing to consider sanctions as an option? Senator GARETH EVANS —Honourable senators will know that the Eminent Persons Group released its report in London last night. That report is a comprehensive and very thorough account of the Group's work during the past six months. Its language is very strong, its message is very compelling and I am sure that the Government will heed both and act accordingly. It should be said that the report gives a fascinating insight into the allegedly reformed apartheid system and into the nature and underlying causes of the cycle of violence which has taken hold in South Africa during the past two years. The members of the Group undertook the task given to it by the Commonwealth heads of government to foster a process of negotiation with a view to establishing a non-racial and representative government with sensitivity, energy and no illusions about the enormity of the task before them. The extent to which the Group won the confidence of a great variety of political groups in South Africa was a remarkable achievement in an increasingly polarised society. The Group's report confirms that there were at one stage grounds for optimism because the South African Government told them `categorically that it was prepared to contemplate negotiations with a completely open agenda'. In the end, however, the Group concluded that the South African Government was not yet prepared to negotiate fundamental change, to countenance the creation of genuine democratic structures, nor to face the prospect of an end to white domination and white power in the foreseeable future. Tragically, the Group was given no option but to conclude that the obduracy and intransigence of the South African Government wrecked the Commonwealth initiative and that there is no present prospect of a process of dialogue leading to the establishment of non-racial and representative government in South Africa. The Group infers that the Commonwealth should impose further measures against South Africa without specifying what they should be because, while the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it, if it is able to conclude that it will always remain protected against such measures it will continue to defer real change and the descent into violence will be accelerated. The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, set out the Government's preliminary views on the Group's report in his statement last night. He said that Cabinet would again be considering Australia's relations with South Africa before the Commonwealth Heads of Government meet in London from 3 to 5 August to consider what further measures should be adopted. Unless there is a dramatic change before that meeting, Mr Hawke expects to take to London the view that further strong measures should be applied on a Commonwealth-wide basis. All I can add, in specific response to Senator Foreman's question homing in on the subject of economic sanctions, is this: The Government agrees that international economic sanctions are one of the few measures available to the international community to bring pressure on the South African authorities to adopt more reasonable policies. Sanctions depend for their effectiveness on the strength of their international support. There is little point in Australia adopting unilateral measures unless these will have real impact on the South African authorities. Such international support is most appropriately expressed through the United Nations, but groups such as the Commonwealth, by virtue of their composition, have an obvious role as well. The Government is working very closely with all members of the Commonwealth to bring about a consensus on the steps that now need to be taken. It is certainly our hope that the most recent actions of the South African regime itself will convince all countries of the need for firm and united action. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE — My question, which is directed to the Minister for Finance, relates to the answer given to Senator Chaney yesterday when he sought details or clarification of the Prime Minister's statement that the Government had identified in excess of $1 billion in expenditure reductions. Since we have known for three months that the Treasurer is aiming at spending cuts of at least $1.4 billion, I ask the Minister whether the Prime Minister's quoting of $1 billion was a lowering of expectations about spending cuts and, if so, is the Minister receiving the support of the Prime Minister in the Expenditure Review Committee to achieve the earlier target? Further, are any savings in payments to the States outlined at today's Premiers Conference and Loan Council meeting included in the $1 billion, or are the additional to it? Senator WALSH —In response to the last part of the question, the Prime Minister said `in excess of $1 billion' had been identified at the time he made his address on Wednesday night, and that was inclusive of Premiers Conference savings. Senator Chaney —Inclusive or exclusive? Senator WALSH —It included those savings. The earlier part of the question was whether the figure of more than $1 billion mentioned by the Prime Minister represented a downgrading of expectations. The answer to that is no. It simply reflects the fact that the Expenditure Review Committee and the Budget processes are not completed. For example, as a result of decisions taken by the ERC yesterday and subject to these being confirmed by Cabinet of course, some $200m additional savings were achieved in the 1986-87 Budget. Those decisions made by the ERC yesterday will mean that the savings will be a figure in excess of that in the following year. The $1.4 billion target still stands, as far as I am concerned and, I believe, as far as the Treasurer and the Prime Minister are concerned. Senator DEVLIN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Can he confirm that the Commonwealth has signed an agreement with Tasmania to allow licences to be issued for the export of woodchips? Senator WALSH —Yes, an agreement was signed last night. It represents a significant advance in Commonwealth-State relations and will lead to the protection of National Estate values. The Prime Minister has given his commitment that all the Commonwealth's powers will be used to ensure that protection. I have a copy of the agreement with me. It is a lengthy document and, rather than trying to describe its contents, I will table it. Senator SHORT —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Why should the public have any more confidence in the Prime Minister's commitment earlier this week to argue for discounting at the next national wage case when the Government broke a similar undertaking in last year's Budget speech to press for discounting at the September 1985 wage case? In view of the fact that Mr Kelty has now joined Mr Crean in ruling out absolutely any further discounting of wages, will the Minister give a guarantee that the Government will not succumb to union pressure, as it did last year, and change its mind about pressing for discounting at the next wage case? Senator BUTTON —Perhaps I misunderstand Senator Short's question, but it seems to contain some higher interpretative elements-if I might use that charitable description of what I believe he has done. I do not believe that the Government made a commitment as such for discounting in the September 1985 case. I believe that that was a matter that the Government agreed to negotiate under the accord. I do not think that there was any commitment which was subsequently backed away from. I doubt that very much. However, assuming that everything Senator Short says is correct for the purposes of answering his question, I emphasise that the Government will not back away from any commitments made in the Prime Minister's speech. The fact that Mr Kelty and Mr Crean are currently on record as disagreeing with the Government should upset Senator Short, because he has accused us of always agreeing with them. The fact is that their disagreement will not dissuade the Government from the course that has been announced. That is quite clear. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs and arises out of the question asked earlier by Senator Foreman. In view of the recent deterioration of the situation in South Africa, including the declaration of a state of emergency on 12 June, and the South African Government's obdurate and destructive response to the work of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group as revealed in the Group's report, does the Government propose to take any immediate steps to demonstrate its condemnation of the actions of the South African Government and the support of Australians for the legitimate aspirations of black South Africans? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Government is gravely disturbed by the apparently rapidly deteriorating situation in South Africa. As a mark of its deep concern, in protest at South African Government actions and to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Soweto uprising, the Government has decided that the Australian Embassy offices in Cape Town and Pretoria will be closed for that day-next Monday, 16 June. The Government totally condemns the South African Government's actions in denying blacks the basic democratic freedoms of political expression and association. The declaration of a state of emergency and widespread crackdown on black political and community leaders would, in our view, exacerbate, not resolve, South Africa's problems. It would deepen black anger and lead to further confrontation and bloodshed. More than 1,600 people have died in political unrest in South Africa in the past 18 months. The South African Government's repressive security measures and the previous state of emergency have singularly failed to ease the township crisis or to silence legitimate black protest. It is tragic that the South African Government continues to refuse to acknowledge that apartheid is the cause of black anger and that only the dismantling of apartheid and granting political rights to the majority black population will create conditions for the restoration of stability. The Government is deeply concerned that at a time when the international community is fostering efforts to bring about peaceful change, the South African Government has demonstrated its complete contempt for black political rights and the whole process of dialogue. For the past month, as we know, the South African Government has mounted raids against neighbouring Commonwealth countries, its security forces have behaved aggressively and provocatively in Crossroads and elsewhere, and it has resorted once again to draconian powers of arrest and detention against its black opponents, the most sweeping exercise of such powers in South Africa's post-war history. These actions have all but destroyed any prospect of a negotiated settlement in the immediate future. The South African actions came as black South Africans prepared to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the Soweto uprising on 16 June 1976. Soweto Day is the day when blacks remember those who were killed in the crack-down following protests which began in Soweto in June 1976. It should be remembered that some 600 people died in clashes with police in the weeks following the uprising. Soweto Day is an important symbol for South African blacks in their struggle for freedom from the oppression of apartheid. The commemoration of Soweto Day occurs at a time when South Africa faces the most serious intensification of violence and repression in its history. It follows the regrettable failure, as I have already mentioned, of Commonwealth efforts for peaceful change. The anniversary of Soweto dramatically underlines the urgent necessity for an end to violence in South Africa. It is a stark reminder of the brutality and human cost of apartheid and a tragic legacy of the unwillingness of the South African authorities to learn the lessons of Sharpeville, Soweto and Uitenhage. As a mark of protest of the South African Government's actions, as I have said, the Australian Embassy in South Africa will be officially closed on 16 June to mark Soweto Day. By its action in closing its Embassy offices, the Government expresses its support and that I believe of the majority of Australians for black South Africans in their efforts to end apartheid and gain their legitimate political rights. Finally, the situation in South Africa over the next few days has the potential to degenerate into even worse violence and bloodshed than has already occurred. This would be a tragedy. The Australian Government hopes that it is still not too late to appeal to all sides, but particularly to the Government of South Africa, to exercise maximum restraint in an attempt to defuse the immediate crisis. Such restraint would, of course, need to be followed by the demonstration of a will to enter into genuine negotiations. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce and refers to the final report by the Industries Assistance Commission on the inquiry into vegetable and vegetable products, included in which was a reduction in tariff applying on imports of navy beans, used, as no doubt all honourable senators would know, for baked beans. Is the Minister aware that the recommendation in regard to the tariff level to apply to navy beans is different from that recommended in the draft report, because in the draft report the Commission recommended that the tariff applying to navy beans be reduced from 25 per cent to a minimum of 10 per cent, but in the final report it was reduced from 25 per cent to minimum rates? Does he realise that the application of minimum tariff rates could jeopardise the future of the navy bean industry in Australia in view of its small production base, compared with major world production areas, notably North America? In conclusion, in view of the Prime Minister's suggestion that we buy Australian made and no doubt that we eat Australian grown, will the Minister please look at this decision of the IAC to reduce the tariff applied on the import of navy beans to see whether it is possible to reduce the tariff from 25 per cent to a minimum of 10 per cent, as recommended in the draft report, rather than to minimum rates as suggested in the final report? Senator BUTTON —I am, on one occasion, grateful for the content of the question because I really was not across the navy bean business. I now regard myself as an expert, having listened to Senator Bjelke-Petersen's question. I am not aware of the reasons which the IAC gave in either its draft report or its final report for the proposed tariff on navy beans. I am asked whether the result will be the demise of the Australian navy bean industry. That is quite likely, I suppose. The only part of the question which I did not really understand-it was not as lucid as the rest-was the suggestion that the navy bean industry is dependent on volumes of scale. I would have thought the Chinese would have a very good navy bean industry on small plots, but I am not sure. I will look at the decision of IAC as appropriate in due course. I am sure the Government will take into consideration the speech the honourable senator made in the course of asking that question. Senator COOK —Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a Press report in yesterday's Hobart Mercury-- Senator Chipp —I will bet that he knows what navy beans are. Senator COOK —Yes, I am sure he does. Has the Minister seen a Press report in yesterday's Hobart Mercury in which a mutual friend of ours, Mr Alan Evans, in his capacity as Secretary of the Tasmanian Public Service Association, is quoted as saying that the proportion of the Tasmanian work force employed by the State Government is 22 per cent and not 28.3 per cent as suggested by the Minister earlier this week? As this statistic is a straight matter of fact, will the Minister please explain what is the situation and will he get in touch with Mr Evans and settle the differences between them over a beer when he is next in Hobart? Senator WALSH —I would expect be doing what was suggested at the end of the question in any case, Mr President. I have not yet spoken to Mr Evans. I have perhaps been remiss in not doing that. I think he has included in his proportionate figure the self-employed persons in Tasmania. I think that that was done and that his figure is probably correct as well. My figures refer to the total employed people in both public and private employment. I think his figures probably include the self-employed as well. That does not alter the conclusion, however, that all the other State figures would have to be adjusted if the self-employed are to be counted in the ratio. Although the figures would be changed, the same conclusion remains; that is, that Tasmania has a far higher proportion of both wage and salary earners and the self-employed, or of wage and salary earners alone, in State Government employment than has any other State. It is some 6 or 7 per cent higher than the lowest State figure, which, from memory, is the figure for New South Wales. On the figures that I used the other day, New South Wales's figure was something under 20 per cent and Tasmania's figure was 28.3 per cent. That was for the September quarter 1985. All of the other States fell between those ranges. From memory, the State coming closest to Tasmania had close to 26 per cent of its employed in the labour force in State Government employment. I did not, as Mr Evans initially suggested, add Commonwealth Government and local government employees in Tasmania to the figures that I used. The figures change a bit from quarter to quarter, but the Australian Bureau of Statistics bulletin No. 6248.0, which was issued on 17 February, shows on page 6 a State Government employment figure for Tasmania of 40,400 and a total of employed wage and salary earners of 142,000, that is, 28.3 per cent. The bulletin issued on 23 April, of the same catalogue number, shows, again on page 6, a State Government employment figure of 40,100 out of a total wage and salary employed figure of 146,700. That comes out as something just under 28 per cent, but it fluctuates a bit above or below 28 per cent. It is by far the highest figure on either basis-that is, net of the self-employed or inclusive of the self-employed-of all the State figures. That is probably one of the reasons that the Commonwealth Grants Commission-the independent body that it is, of course-decided in 1984 or early 1985 that the relativities should be changed in a way that would require $60m to be taken off Federal grants to Tasmania. The Grants Commission, a completely independent body, recognised that Tasmania had been treated too generously by the Commonwealth in the past and that $60m had to be taken off it. I note the humbuggery of Senator Townley, Senator Newman and Senator Walters in particular, who bleat and demand in this chamber that Commonwealth Government expenditure be reduced-but not, of course, for Tasmania. They remind me of Saint Paul who said something like this: `God make me pure, but not yet'. Senator Gareth Evans —Saint Aquinas. Senator WALSH —Saint Aquinas? Senator Durack —Saint Augustine. Senator WALSH —Saint Augustine; I am sorry. The Tasmanians remind me of that when they say: `Cut government expenditure, but not for us or anything that we want to preserve'. Senator MACKLIN —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given that South Africa is facing a bloodbath of unbelievable proportions, why has the Government not introduced a schedule of automatic economic sanctions and, in particular, placed a ban on fish and diamond imports, given notice of cessation of South African Airways flights to Australia, imposed a ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa, banned the buying of all South African goods by government and government agencies, begun its promised program of vocational training of South African blacks, and ended all South African Government representation in this country? Senator BUTTON —I do not quite remember the last time-I guess it was following the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting-that the Government considered this matter, and a variety of statements were made about the South African situation at that time. As I recall it, the Government's view articulated by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at the time was that Australia stood ready to impose sanctions and to take a variety of other steps, but at that stage we were, if anything, in the vanguard of world commitment to act in that way and it was felt that it would not be very meaningful for Australia to act in isolation without the full and committed support of other Commonwealth countries including, if possible, the United Kingdom. That position was quite clearly expressed at the time and recent events in South Africa will inevitably lead to a reappraisal and further development of the Government's commitment made on the previous occasion. The Prime Minister last night issued a Press statement which provided a response to the situation now obtaining in South Africa. As soon as the Government can consider this matter in further detail, we will do so. I cannot give a response to each of the parts of the honourable senator's question and there are a number of other things in addition to those things mentioned in the question which the Government was considering on the previous occasion when this matter was before it. I have no doubt that it will be a priority matter for consideration when the Cabinet resumes deliberations, probably next week. Senator McKIERNAN —I ask the Minister for Finance whether his attention has been brought to an article in today's Melbourne Age newspaper by columnist Terry McCrann which, in part, states: . . . don't get rich or we will slap you down with the most punitive capital gains tax in the world, various disguised wealth taxes and a range of other imposts . . . Is it factual to say that the Australian capital gains tax is the most punitive in the world? Will the Minister give a comparison of the tax levels in this country with those of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries? Senator Chipp —Why do we even dignify McCrann by commenting on him? He is not worth it. Senator WALSH —It is certainly not correct that Australia has the most punitive capital gains tax in the world, and I have no idea what Mr McCrann means by his reference to `various disguised wealth taxes'-no idea at all. Senator Chipp —He would not know either. Senator WALSH —I do not quite share Senator Chipp's view of Mr McCrann. I do not put him in the ratbag Right with Des Keegan, Katharine West or David Barnett, but certainly he sometimes allows his right wing prejudices to crowd out the facts. The article to which Senator McKiernan has drawn attention and the article which he wrote the day before demonstrate that. The one he wrote the day before referred, among other things, to the glorious days of the 1960s when the Australian economy was roaring along in a very healthy fashion. The truth, of course, is that it was at that very time that Black Jack McEwen was putting in place and cementing in the structural defects in the Australian economy which continue to plague it to this day. It was not just a question of McEwen being a high protectionist; it was a question of the type of protection he went for. If one had tried to design a policy which would maximise the amount of structural damage for any given level of protection, it probably would not be possible to design one more effective than McEwen's local content plan for the motor vehicle industry, the damaging effects of which are being whittled away by my colleague Senator Button and by the Government in general. Referring now to today's article about the capital gains tax, it is certainly not true to say that it is the most punitive capital gains tax in the world. Almost every OECD country has a capital gains tax. The rates vary but they are usually around 30 per cent, with the exception of the United Kingdom. But there is one crucial qualification-they tax nominal gains, not real gains. Only in the United Kingdom, and then only for the last 12 months-it is one of Thatcher's redistributive measures, that is redistributive towards the rich-is the base indexed. In other words, in all countries other than the United Kingdom and Australia nominal gains are taxed, not real gains. If one assumed that an asset was purchased today for $100,000, that the market price of the asset and the inflation rate remained constant at 5 per cent for 14 years and that the asset was then sold, the tax levied under the Australian system would be zero. The tax levied under the common OECD-type tax, that is, a flat rate of 30 per cent, would be $30,000. Certainly the figures change if one makes different assumptions. For example, the same $100,000 asset held for 14 years with a 5 per cent inflation rate and a 10 per cent compound increase in the value of the asset-and they are highly unlikely assumptions, I stress-under the 30 per cent rate common in the OECD the tax paid would be just under $90,000 and under the Australian system it would be just under $98,000. So the Australian tax, under those highly unlikely conditions, would be slightly higher than the sorts of taxes that would apply in the OECD generally. With any ratio of inflation to asset value increase less than the 1 : 2 ratio which is cited in that hypothetical example the Australian tax would be lower than under the common type of capital gains taxes which prevail in the OECD. Senator McKIERNAN —I have a supplementary question. Should McCrann or the Age newspaper be expected now to produce a correction to the misleading information that it has delivered in the last two articles to which the Minister referred? Senator WALSH —The Age always has the opportunity to report what is said in the Parliament. In this instance I hope that it does report it. Senator TEAGUE —I ask the Minister for Education about some significant features of Commonwealth expenditure on government and non-government schools, referring in particular to the expenditure figures released by her Department in March and the enrolment figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in April of this year. Will the Minister explain, in the light of the Prime Minister's contrary assurances to non-government schools prior to the last election, how it now has become clear that the highest point in the proportion of Commonwealth schools money going to non- government schools was the 1983-84 financial year and how, in the two years since then, the non-government schools proportion has dropped? Why for the very first time was there this percentage drop in Commonwealth expenditure for non-government schools, especially when there was in the same year a 2.4 per cent increase in non-government school enrolments and a 1.3 per cent decrease in government school enrolments, these developments reflecting Australian families exercising choice in education? Finally, at the forthcoming Australian Labor Party Conference will the Minister be boasting that she has established the high-water water-mark for non- government schools and that she is now trying to turn back the tide? Senator RYAN —I do not have the figures before me that Senator Teague was referring to but I think his interpretation of them must have been wrong because the overall expenditure on schools, government and non-government, has increased each year that we have been in government. The rate of increase has been higher for government schools than for non-government schools. The reason for that is that when we came to government the level of recurrent support for government schools was very low; it had actually been cut during the period of the Fraser Government. Because our policy is needs-based we legislated for higher proportional increases over the four-year funding period than for schools in the non-government sector which had received, in many cases, very large increases during the period of the Fraser Government. But the only non-government schools that are not receiving increases in the level of funds are those schools in categories one and two. The schools in all the other categories-that is, the majority of non-government schools-are receiving legislated increases each year. If Senator Teague would like a fuller explanation of this I think he should place that question on notice. Senator GILES —Is the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of the recent kidnapping of 13 members of a West German construction team and the murder of a Spanish health worker by Nicaragua's United States-backed Contra rebels? Is he also aware that this is part of a deliberate and announced policy of terrorism against international aid workers, an increasing number of whom are Australian? Have Australian aid workers expressed their concern in a letter to the Prime Minister? If so, what is the Australian Government doing to communicate its abhorrence of this policy which flies in the face of the norms of international relations and which receives covert support from the United States Administration? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is a matter of particular concern that Contra attacks in Nicaragua in recent months have involved non-Nicaraguans working there. On 16 February a Swiss aid worker was killed in a Contra ambush of a truck in northern Nicaragua. On 17 May eight nationals of the Federal Republic of Germany were kidnapped by Contras in the course of an attack on a rural co-operative in south central Nicaragua. Three other Germans and a Chilean were reported to have been captured at the same time but managed to escape. A Spanish volunteer health worker was killed, along with nine Nicaraguans, when the truck in which he was travelling struck a mine on 25 May. These and other incidents indicate a continuing pattern of indiscriminate attacks and serious human rights violations by the Contras which do nothing to improve their already sullied reputation. This is all the more worrying in the light of measures reportedly taken by the political leaders of the umbrella Contra organisation-the United Nicaraguan Opposition-to clean up the Contras' act. I expressed the Government's disapproval of the Contras in the Senate on 12 March as did Mr Hayden in the House of Representatives on 18 March. I am happy to be able to report, however, that the eight West Germans were released, unharmed, on 10 June after strenuous and high level diplomatic efforts. The Australian Government trusts that there will be no further incidents of this kind. As regards Contra policy towards international aid workers, a Contra spokesperson was quoted recently in the Press as saying that the capture of the West Germans was a message to the internationalists. I understand that there is also a Contra document setting out rules for the treatment of prisoners of war which lists internationalists as a category to be regarded as combatants. It is not clear, however, whether this is intended to refer to foreign volunteer workers or, for example, foreign military advisers assisting the Nicaraguan armed forces. It does not appear at this stage that the Contras have made a policy decision to treat volunteer foreign workers as fair game. In the present case I understand that there was concern among the Contra leadership that no harm should come to those captured. But the Government would attribute this to concern for the Contras' international reputation rather than the welfare of the volunteers. Nevertheless, the risks to foreign volunteers in combat zones are obvious. I have not seen the letter to the Prime Minister referred to by Senator Giles but the concerns of Australian aid workers in Nicaragua were conveyed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs two weeks ago through our Embassy in Mexico City. An officer of that Embassy is at present in Nicaragua on a regular visit and intends to be in touch with the Australian aid workers there. As Acting Foreign Minister I strongly advise Australians in Nicaragua to avoid combat zones or areas where Contras are known to be active. These are concentrated along Nicaragua's southern and northern borders. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows the question that I asked of him two days ago about the costs of the production of the Prime Minister's address to the nation which I understand to have been in the vicinity of $50,000. Is he yet in a position to confirm that, contrary to previous practice, these costs are being met by the public purse? If they are being met by the public purse does he agree that the same treatment should be afforded to the Leader of the Opposition who has been granted equal time to respond? Senator BUTTON —Frankly, I am not sure what past practice has been. But we are all in favour of equality here-except the Opposition-and I would assume that that situation would apply. Senator CHILDS —My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, refers to an article in today's Canberra Times which states that an advertising campaign is to be launched this month publicising the danger of AIDS-the acquired immune deficiency syndrome-in Canberra buses and newspapers. Will the Minister confirm that the advertising campaign will not go ahead in its present form? Does the Minister support the general thrust of the campaign? Senator GRIMES —It is my understanding that the advertisement in question was not approved by the Outdoor Advertising Association of Australia in its decision yesterday. The advertising code does not support advertisements calculated to encourage breaches of the law or anything likely to cause grave offence to the community or a significant section of the community. ACTION management's rejection was based on the need for the advertisement to satisfy advertising industry self-regulation codes and the appropriateness to display it on buses which will carry people of all ages. Nearly 50 per cent of the users of ACTION buses would be school children. There was some misinformation in the article. The story in the Canberra Times was not checked for accuracy with ACTION management or with Australian Posters Pty Ltd, the advertising agent. A more suitable advertisement on the topic which overcomes some of the difficulties in the present format is being considered and I understand that, under those circumstances, we will have a continuation of the advertising campaign but not of the type that was suggested today. The PRESIDENT —Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that today is the last sitting day on which they will have the services of Mrs Agnes Moore, who is at present seated in the presidential gallery, who has provided us with outstanding service in the parliamentary refreshment rooms for the past 16 1/2 years. Mrs Moore is to retire on 11 July next. She commenced duty in 1970 and has served the Parliament for 33 parliamentary sessions. I am sure that all honourable senators are familiar with the courteous and unassuming manner in which Agnes has carried out her duties. She is one of the great people who work in and serves this Parliament and all of us will miss her very much indeed. On behalf of all honourable senators I offer her our best wishes and wish her well in her retirement. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator WALSH —Yesterday in the Senate I undertook to provide Senator Walters with statistics on Public Service numbers under the Fraser Government. Between 1975 and 1983 what used to be called the Second Division, which is now called the Senior Executive Service, of the Public Service grew by 18 per cent. Third Division staff grew by nearly 15 per cent. To the extent that there were reductions in Public Service Act staff they were in the area I mentioned yesterday-the day labour force in the Department of Housing and Construction which fell from 8,668 to 3,868 between June 1975 and June 1983. Even after allowing for transfers of part of that function to the Northern Territory the reduction approaches 50 per cent. The total reduction in day labour staff under the Public Service Act was 29.9 per cent during the period of the Fraser Government. The former Government's achievement was to get cosmetic reductions in the numbers by transferring the work from publicly employed staff to private contractors. Other claims about the Fraser Government's supposed control of Public Service numbers simply ignore the various transfers of functions which occurred; for example, the transfer of staff to the Northern Territory. When these transfers are counted back, total growth in Public Service employment is over 6 per cent not, as Mr Howard has claimed, one per cent, even after the cosmetic reductions in sacking the day labour staff are taken into account. Of course, in the latter years of the Fraser Government, it is well known that the Taxation Office was starved of the staff it needed to collect income tax-a defect which was remedied in the final year of the Fraser Government. The full year effects of that and other staff increases of the last year of the Fraser Government were felt when this Government's first Budget was produced in 1983. Figures can be found in one of the current Budget Papers-I am not sure which one-at page 425, Table 2, the right hand column of which shows a 30 June on 30 June increase of 5.4 per cent in June 1983, 3.3 per cent in June 1984 and 2.2 per cent in June 1985. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember what the anticipated figure is this year, but it is less than 2 per cent on that same basis. Senator Chaney —-To put some of those figures in context, Mr President, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard Table 91 and Table 93 from the Public Service Board Statistical Yearbook for 1984-85, which show the stability of numbers in the Public Service under the Fraser Government and the steep rise under the Hawke Government. I think that the pathetic attempts of the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) to explain that away are best illustrated by having those figures side by side with his explanation. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Walsh —Yes, Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —Leave is granted. Senator Walsh —Because the figures do not make allowances for the cosmetic reductions which were achieved by transferring the day labour force. The tables read as follows- Table 91 CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES/EMPLOYED WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS(a): SECTOR AND SEX, 1975-1985 ('000) Sector At June- 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980(b) 1981 1982 1983 At May- 1984(c) 1985 Men Government- Aust. Public Service(d)... 198.1 104.0 101.4 101.1 97.2 96.5 96.4 94.7 97.8 101.0 102.2 Other Aust. Govt(d)... 82.1 171.5 170.8 180.5 178.9 179.3 181.4 179.9 178.9 180.9 184.5 State... 554.7 560.1 574.7 576.2 579.5 582.3 582.0 582.3 586.7 619.7 625.5 Northern Territory... . . . . . . . . 6.0 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 8.3 8.0 Local... 121.1 101.5 102.3 103.8 102.8 103.7 102.5 104.5 107.1 118.1 116.2 Total... 955.9 937.1 949.2 961.1 964.4 969.4 970.0 968.9 978.1 1,027.9 1,036.4 Private... 2,196.9 2,190.1 2,168.6 2,126.2 2,140.8 2,151.1 (e) (e) (e) 2,012.1 2,130.8 Total... 3,152.9 3,127.2 3,117.8 3,087.2 3,105.2 3,120.5 (e) (e) (e) 3,040.1 3,167.3 Women Government- Aust. Public Service(d)... 73.4 48.4 50.6 52.4 51.5 52.0 53.3 54.4 59.8 64.3 67.0 Other Aust. Govt(d)... 45.2 67.1 66.0 68.1 68.3 68.7 71.7 73.0 72.7 75.7 80.8 State... 341.2 359.3 377.8 392.0 402.3 409.0 420.0 426.9 434.0 445.6 461.8 Northern Territory... . . . . . . . . 3.9 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.5 7.4 7.6 Local... 19.9 19.8 21.7 23.6 24.7 26.1 27.7 28.9 31.1 34.7 37.5 Total... 479.7 494.6 516.1 536.1 550.7 562.3 579.3 589.9 604.1 627.7 654.7 Private... 1,297.3 1,311.0 1,303.0 1,298.4 1,325.1 1,349.1 (e) (e) (e) 1,443.4 1,544.9 Total... 1,777.0 1,805.7 1,819.1 1,834.6 1,875.8 1,911.4 (e) (e) (e) 2,071.1 2,199.7 Total Government- Aust. Public Service(d)... 271.4 152.4 152.0 153.5 148.7 148.5 149.7 149.1 157.6 165.3 169.3 Other Aust. Govt(d)... 127.3 238.6 236.8 248.6 247.2 248.0 253.1 252.9 251.6 256.6 265.2 State... 895.9 919.5 952.5 968.2 981.8 991.3 1,002.0 1,009.3 1,020.6 1,065.3 1,087.4 Northern Territory... . . . . . . . . 9.9 14.1 14.3 14.2 14.3 15.6 15.5 Local... 141.0 121.3 124.0 126.9 127.5 129.8 130.2 133.4 138.2 152.8 153.8 Total... 1,435.7 1,431.7 1,465.2 1,497.2 1,515.1 1,531.7 1,549.3 1,558.8 1,582.2 1,655.6 1,691.1 Private... 3,494.2 3,501.1 3,471.6 3,424.6 3,465.9 3,500.3 (e) (e) (e) 3,455.5 3,675.8 Total... 4,929.9 4,932.8 4,936.9 4,921.8 4,981.0 5,031.9 (e) (e) (e) 5,111.1 5,367.0 (a) Excludes defence forces, employees/wage and salary earners in the private sector employed in agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and private households and those based overseas. See also footnote (c). (b) Details for the Private sector are at April 1980-see also footnote (e). (c) From July 1983, data for Private and Government sectors are provided by the new Survey of Employment and Earnings using revised concepts and definitions. This has resulted in the inclusion of a substantial number of part-time employees, mainly in State and local government, as well as government employees in agriculture which were previously excluded. Under the new collection arrangements, the men/women split is only available for the middle month in the quarter. Consequently, from 1984 onwards the information is presented as at May. (d) Figures for the Australian Public Service for 1984 and 1985 are at June. Staff of the Departments of the Parliament are included with `Other Australian Government'. (e) Statistics of employment in the Private sector are not available from May 1980 to June 1983 due to the cessation of the `Civilian Employees' series. Sources: (1) Australian Public Service-Public Service Board, Canberra. (2) Other-Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Note: Any discrepancies between totals and sums of components are due to rounding. Table 93 FULL-TIME STAFF EMPLOYED UNDER THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT (a): EMPLOYMENT CATEGORY AND SEX, 1975-1985 Employment category At June- 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Men-Number Permanent... 76,417 79,483 78,389 79,588 79,373 79,625 79,634 78,280 81,682 84,244 86,308 Temporary... 5,114 4,674 4,022 3,475 2,520 2,274 2,268 2,471 2,830 3,012 3,155 Exempt... 22,498 23,653 22,213 21,400 18,677 17,728 17,571 16,852 16,030 15,993 15,147 Total... 104,029 107,810 104,624 104,463 100,570 99,627 99,473 97,603 100,542 103,249 104,610 Women-Number Permanent... 35,981 36,594 37,693 40,046 41,320 42,755 43,912 44,329 49,060 52,550 54,603 Temporary... 7,541 5,773 5,479 5,392 4,026 3,170 3,148 3,936 4,279 4,830 5,724 Exempt... 7,938 7,588 6,716 6,094 5,453 5,191 5,228 5,032 5,309 5,370 4,993 Total... 51,460 49,955 49,888 51,532 50,799 51,116 52,288 53,297 58,648 62,750 65,320 Total-Number Permanent... 112,398 116,077 116,082 119,634 120,693 122,380 123,546 122,609 130,742 136,794 140,911 Temporary... 12,655 10,447 9,501 8,867 6,546 5,444 5,416 6,407 7,109 7,842 8,879 Exempt... 30,436 31,241 28,929 27,494 24,130 22,919 22,799 21,884 21,339 21,363 20,140 Total... 155,489 157,765 154,512 155,995 151,369 150,743 151,761 150,900 159,190 165,999 169,930 Men-Per cent Permanent... 49.1 50.4 50.7 51.0 52.4 52.8 52.5 51.9 51.3 50.7 50.8 Temporary... 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 Exempt... 14.5 15.0 14.4 13.7 12.3 11.8 11.6 11.2 10.1 9.6 8.9 Total... 66.9 68.3 67.7 67.0 66.4 66.1 65.5 64.7 63.2 62.2 61.6 Women-Per cent Permanent... 23.1 23.2 24.4 25.7 27.3 28.4 28.9 29.4 30.8 31.7 32.1 Temporary... 4.8 3.7 3.5 3.5 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.4 Exempt... 5.1 4.8 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.9 Total... 33.1 31.7 32.3 33.0 33.6 33.9 34.5 35.3 36.8 37.8 38.4 Total-Per cent Permanent... 72.3 73.6 75.1 76.7 79.7 81.2 81.4 81.3 82.1 82.4 82.9 Temporary... 8.1 6.6 6.1 5.7 4.3 3.6 3.6 4.2 4.5 4.7 5.2 Exempt... 19.6 19.8 18.7 17.6 15.9 15.2 15.0 14.5 13.4 12.9 11.9 Total... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (a) Excludes staff of the Departments of the Parliament, officers on leave under section 71 (1) and regulation 61P to serve overseas as representatives of the Government and staff of the former Postmaster-General's Department. Note: Any discrepancies between totals and sums of components are due to rounding. Senator GARETH EVANS —The other day Senator Harradine raised a question about the continued operation of the Sex Discrimination Act after 1 August 1986 and the issue as to what the status of certain Commonwealth and State laws and regulations possibly in breach of that Act would be under the exemption provisions of the legislation. I undertook to Senator Harradine to provide him with an answer in my capacity as the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I now do so, Mr President, and seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- OPERATION OF SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT AFTER 1 AUGUST 1986 The Sex Discrimination Act 1984 rendered unlawful acts of discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status and pregnancy in certain specified fields subject to Commonwealth legislative power in respect of those fields. The Act in effect exempted acts done in direct compliance with existing Commonwealth and State laws for a two-year period of grace after the Act come into force on 1 August 1984 (paragraphs 40 (1) (a) and (b)). The Act also provided for prolongation of the period of grace by Regulation (sub-section 40 (2)). Consistent with the objects of the Act, the Government instituted steps so that in the period of grace Commmonwealth and State laws that were exempted for the period of grace would be amended to remove the inconsistencies, or preserved by regulation under the Act where their continuation is justified. The steps that were instituted to this end were- (a) a letter from the Prime Minister to State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory on 4 September 1984. (b) a letter from the Attorney-General to all Ministers on 25 October 1984. These letters invited review of State and Commonwealth laws to identify any laws that needed to be preserved. Follow-up action was taken particularly regarding the States and the Northern Territory: the Attorney-General raised the matter in the Meetings of the Ministers on Human Rights (Standing Committee of Attorneys-General). The Acting Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department wrote to the heads of all Departments, in December 1985, to remind them of the matter. Given the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Government's position is that it should only preserve laws that the responsible (Commonwealth) Minister or the responsible State Government indicates it wishes to be preserved. Commonwealth Legislation In the Commonwealth sphere, there has been an extensive review of legislation by the responsible Departments. Departments have indicated the laws that need to be preserved. Regulations will be made preserving those laws. In a number of instances, laws have been amended to remove discriminatory provision. Other laws requiring amendment are dealt with in the Sex Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1986. State Legislation The existence of discriminatory provisions in State legislation is a matter for State Governments. Four States now have their own anti-discrimination legislation. South Australia and Western Australia have their own anti-discrimination legislation which overrides inconsistent State legislation. No State has sought a continued exemption for inconsistent legislation. It must be assumed that all States accept that the Sex Discrimination Act will apply according to its tenor in relation to inconsistent State legislation (if any). The Government has agreed to a 12 months' extension of the exemption for certain State protective employment legislation which was in force at the commencement of the Sex Discrimination Act (see attached list which includes weight lifting restrictions for women in State legislation in force on 1 August 1984 and which has been sent to the States for their comments and/or additions). This extension can be implemented by regulations made under the Sex Discrimination Act. Territory Legislation The Department of Territories has been conducting a review of discriminatory A.C.T. and external Territory legislation. Amendments are being made as drafting resources allow. Regulations will be made under the Sex Discrimination Act to extend the exemption for certain Ordinances to allow completion of the review of those Ordinances (see attached list). Senator Harradine's Request While Senator Harradine might feel more comfortable with a list of overridden and retained provisions it is not really necessary that such a list be published. The fact is that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 stands as the law that is to be followed after 31 July 1986 except to the extent that regulations are made pursuant to Parliament's mandate contained in sub-section 40 (2) of the Act. Nevertheless, so far as the Attorney-General's Department is aware, no other Commonwealth Department has proceeded on the basis that there is an inconsistent Commonwealth law that is to be overridden by the Sex Discrimination Act. All other Departments have given written responses regarding the reviews of Commonwealth laws undertaken by them so there is a `nil return' to the demand for a list of overridden provisions. The provisions to be retained will be set out in regulations (list is attached). Senator Harradine gave two instances of laws in the Act in respect of which there could be uncertainty in the event of the application of the Sex Discrimination Act. It is certainly true that questions could arise in the first instance if the Act were to be invoked, i.e. in court proceedings. The view of the Attorney-General's Department is that the Act would have no application in the first instance. It deals with ``Acts'' by ``persons'' and thus has no application in court proceedings. (Also, the Act declares acts unlawful, it does not render other provisions nugatory). The procedure under the Act-complaint to the Human Rights Commission etc- illustrates the non-applicability of the Act. In the second instance, the Act would not apply since the provision was there to deal with the customary change of a woman's name upon marriage. There was no custom for the husband's name to change. There is no discrimination (the circumstances of the two sexes is are not the same). In both instances, the laws are covered by what is said above regarding the review of Territory laws i.e. the laws are being reviewed and regulations will be made as appropriate. Commonwealth Legislation to be Exempted from Operation of Act Regulations are to be made under the Sex Discrimination Act to preserve the exemption for the following Commonwealth legislation: National Health Act-payment of benefits to women at 60 but to men only at 65; exemption on the ground of cost; Student Assistance Act-allocation of student allowances by reference to marital status; exemption on the ground of cost; Defence Service Homes Act-benefits for female but not male dependants of members of the Forces; exemption on the ground of cost; War Gratuity Act-payment of gratuities to female, but not male dependants, of men who served in World War 2; Marriage Act-different marriageable ages for men and women; restrictions on marriage of females overseas; exemption for different marriageable ages justified by earlier maturity of women; Defence Act, National Service Act-call up of men in time of war; exemption reflects existing exemption under SDA for women from combat duties; Taxation legislation-a further exemption for 12 months to allow a review of discriminatory provisions to be finalised. State Employment Legislation to be Exempted from Act for a Further 12 Months NEW SOUTH WALES Factories Shops and Industries Act 1962 and Regulations made thereunder including: Factories (Health and Safety) General Regulations Abrasive Blasting Regulations Lead Regulations Coal Mines Regulation Act 1912 Mines Inspection Act 1901 Mines Rescue Act 1925 Construction Safety Act 1912 and Regulations VICTORIA Labour and Industry Act 1958 and Regulations made thereunder including: Labour and Industry (Factories, Shops, Offices and Warehouses) Regulations Labour and Industry (Factories) Regulations 1969 Labour and Industry (Lead Processes) Regulations 1966 Extractive Industries Act 1962 Industrial Safety Health and Welfare Act 1981 and Regulations made thereunder including: Industrial Safety Health and Welfare (General Safety) Regulations 1982 Coal Mines Act 1958 QUEENSLAND Factories and Shops Act 1960, Regulations and Rules made thereunder including: Factories and Shops Act Rules General Rule 1 Lead Rule Mines Regulations Act 1964 Coal Mining Act 1925 WESTERN AUSTRALIA Factories and Shops Act 1963 and Regulations made thereunder including: Abrasive Blasting Regulations 1977 Factories (Lead Materials) Regulations 1971 Factories (Welfare) Regulations Shops and Warehouses (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations SOUTH AUSTRALIA Industrial Safety Health and Welfare Act 1972 and Regulations made thereunder including: Commercial Safety Code Regulations 1978 Industrial Safety Code Regulations 1975-76 TASMANIA Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare Act 1977 and Regulations made thereunder including: Industrial Safety, Health and Welfare (Administrative and General) Regulations 1979. Ordinance Australian Capital Territory Adoption of Children Ordinance Child Welfare Ordinance Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Ordinance Laws in force under section 6 of the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 Cocos (Keeling) Islands Adoption of Children Ordinance Divorce Ordinance Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Ordinance Registration of Births and Deaths Ordinance Penal Code Muslims Ordinance Christmas Island Adoption of Children Ordinance Divorce Ordinance Married Women and Children (Maintenance) Ordinance Registration of Births and Deaths Ordinance Penal Code Muslims Ordinance Norfolk Island Adoption of Children Ordinance Crimes Act Social Services Act Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I seek leave, Mr President, to have incorporated in Hansard a schedule in relation to the list of reports tabled by you in the Senate on 12 June 1986. Leave granted. The schedule read as follows- SCHEDULE GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS AUTUMN SITTINGS 1986 A. SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES Constitutional and Legal Affairs 1. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO CONSCRIPTED MILITARY SERVICE-Tabled 28.5.85. Since my report to the Senate on 6 December 1985 the Attorney-General's Department has been given the task of co-ordinating the Government's response. The report opened up for consideration a range of issues relevant to long term defence force planning, wider than the particular issue of conscientious objection addressed by the Senate Standing Committee. It has an impact on legislation coming under more than one portfolio. The report is still under consideration by advisers in the Defence portfolio. When the Government has received advice it will respond to the report. 2. COMMONWEALTH LAW MAKING POWER AND THE PRIVILEGE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN STATE PARLIAMENTS-Tabled 30.5.85. This report involves complex issues of constitutional law which are currently being examined. 3. A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AUSTRALIA?-Tabled 5.11.85. In February 1986, when the Government's response to the report was due, the Australian Bill of Rights Bill was before the Senate. The Government is of the view that the matters raised in the report, and the Government's response to them, have had a full airing in the Senate debate on this Bill. A separate Ministerial statement is therefore considered unnecessary. 4. IVF AND THE STATUS OF CHILDREN-Tabled 6.12.85. The Government supports the general thrust of the Committee's recommendations for uniformity of State and Territory law on issues relating to the parentage of children born by means of in vitro fertilization. Preparation of a final Government response is well advanced, following detailed consideration of the appropriate forum in which uniformity issues should be addressed. Education and the Arts 1. TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMICS-Tabled 9.9.82. The Government will be considering the issue of tenure of academics in the context of its consideration of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Committee's review of efficiency and effectiveness in higher education which is due to report in June 1986. 2. A NATIONAL LANGUAGE POLICY-Tabled 21.2.85. The Minister for Education made a statement in the Senate on 14 February 1986, concerning the Government's response to the National Language Policy Report. The Minister advised the Senate that since the tabling of the report on 21 February 1985, she had been actively exploring ways to develop a coherent and comprehensive national language policy and that officers of her Department had been examining and assessing the report in consultation with other relevant bodies. Progress had been made in many of the fields discussed by the Committee, but the Minister wished to present the response as a fully formed policy. Because of the complexity of the issues raised in the report, and the need to ensure that the policy reflects the views of all interested parties, Senator Ryan has decided that further careful examination and consultation are required. A special consultant, Mr Joe Lo Bianco, has therefore been engaged, to assist with this task and to formulate a National Language Policy for the Government's consideration. Mr Lo Bianco is Chairperson of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Multicultural and Migrant Education, Deputy Chairperson of the National Advisory and Co-ordinating Committee on Multicultural Education and part-time member of the Victorian State Board of Education. He is also currently an adviser to the Victorian Minister for Education. Mr Lo Bianco has been appointed for a period of six months and it is expected that the Government's response to the Report will be made at the conclusion of his consultancy. Finance and Government Operations 1. STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH-FIFTH REPORT-Tabled 16.9.82. The Minister for Finance made a major statement on 10.6.1986 on Government proposed policy on statutory authorities encompassing the ambit of this report. No further response is intended. 2. PRACTICAL OPERATION OF THE PRESCRIBED PAYMENTS SYSTEM-Tabled 4.9.84. As all of the Committee's recommendations for changes in the prescribed payments system have been given legislative effect, the Government does not propose any further response. Industry and Trade 1. AUSTRALIA-CHINA TRADE-Tabled 23.8.84. Further reports are expected to be tabled. The Government's response will be made when the Committee's final report is tabled. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF CLOSER ECONOMIC RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND-First report tabled 11.10.84. Second report tabled 20.8.85. Third report tabled 11.2.86. The Government's response will be made when the Committee's final report is tabled. National Resources 1. DEVELOPMENT OF THE BAUXITE, ALUMINA AND ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES-Tabled 25.11.81. The Government considers it made a final response to this report on 16.10.1984. 2. NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY-Tabled 5.12.85 The Government is not yet in a position to respond to this report. Science, Technology and the Environment LAND USE POLICY IN AUSTRALIA-Tabled 21.2.85 The Government is not yet in a position to respond to this report. Social Welfare CHILDREN IN INSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER FORMS OF CARE-A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE-Tabled 22.8.85 The Minister for Community Services is expected to respond to the report before the Senate rises for the winter recess. B. SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES Video Material-Tabled 28.3.85 The Government does not propose to respond until it has had the opportunity also to consider any matters raised by the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, which is yet to report. Animal Welfare DOLPHINS AND WHALES IN CAPTIVITY- Tabled 29.11.85 Preparation of a response to the report has involved extensive consultation between Government departments. The views of State Governments on the recommendations must also be taken into account prior to a response being finalised. STATUTORY AUTHORITY FINANCING-Volume 1 tabled 8.9.83 Volume 2 tabled 13.10.83. The Minister for Finance made a major statement on 10.6.86 on Government proposed policy on statutory authorities encompassing the ambit of this report. No further response is intended. Volatile Substance Fumes VOLATILE SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN AUSTRALIA-Tabled 6.12.85 The Government is not yet in a position to provide a detailed response to the Committee's report. The report has served a useful purpose in highlighting some weaknesses in our existing response to the abuse of volatile substances. The Committee found, for example, that it was hampered in its investigation by the lack of data and comprehensive information about the problem. This is an issue for governments to overcome, and the strategy to do so is now being developed as part of a new National Drug Data Collection System. A consultant's report on the system, its components, and barriers to standardisation of the data will be provided to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) by the middle of next month. The Council has already agreed to a mechanism to enable the consultant's report to be actioned out of session and for any recommendations agreed by all parties to be put into place immediately. As the impact of the Committee's recommendations are largely at the State/Territory level, however, a full and considered response to the Senate on the Committee's recommendations requires extensive consultation with the States and Territories, a process which the Minister for Health has set in train through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. At its meeting on 2 May 1986, the MCDS agreed to establish a Commonwealth/State/Territory Working Group to consider the report and its recommendations and provide advice to the Council as a matter of urgency. The Working Party has already commenced its task and a considered Government response to the Report will be made as soon as possible after the MCDS advises its position on the Committee's recommendations. In the interim, the Government can advise that the sniffing of volatile substances is a form of drug abuse that will be increasingly addressed by the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse being jointly conducted by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments. C. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEES Australian Capital Territory PARLIAMENTARY ZONE DEVELOPMENT PLAN-Tabled 1.3.84 In its report of March 1984 on the draft Parliamentary Zone Development Plan, prepared by the National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), the Joint Standing Committee gave ``in-principle'' approval to the proposals contained in the draft Plan. In June 1984 the Government agreed that the Plan provided a suitable basis for submission to the relevant Committees of the Parliament for approval of proposals for the Mall, the lake foreshore and access roads. It was also decided that as appropriate opportunities arise, the Mall area, should be considered as a suitable location for buildings of national or governmental significance having appropriate architectural merit. On 18 February 1986, the NCDC's revised Parliamentary Zone Development Plan was tabled in the Senate. Detailed proposals arising out of the Plan are currently under consideration by the Government. As the erection of buildings and the other works foreshadowed in the Plan require Parliament's approval, in accordance with the Parliament Act 1974, the Government does not consider any further response to the report to be necessary. Foreign Affairs and Defence DISARMAMENT AND ARMS CONTROL-Tabled 11.10.84 The Government's response will be made when the Committee tables its final report. National Crime Authority FIRST REPORT-Tabled 29.11.85 The problem perceived by the Committee in its first report has been discussed between the Committee, the National Crime Authority and the Minister. As a result of these discussions, there has been clarification of the apparent differences between the Authority and the Committee. The Government is confident that these discussions will lead to the development of a sound relationship between the two bodies. D. JOINT SELECT COMMITTEES PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE-Tabled 3.10.84 The report raised a number of complex and substantial issues relating to parliamentary privilege. The Government is not yet in a position to respond to this report. Electoral Reform ENTITLEMENT OF FEDERAL TERRITORIES AND NEW STATES TO REPRESENTATION IN THE COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENT-Tabled 17.2.86 The Government generally supports the Committee's proposals for, among other things, fixed formulae for determining Territorial representation in the Commonwealth Parliament. The Government is not yet in a position, however, to respond fully to the report. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-As I understand it, the paper deals with Government responses to parliamentary committee reports, and it may be a matter which, after examination, the Senate will wish to debate. For that reason, I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave, Mr President, to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that the rising of the Senate today will mark the completion of 40 years continuous broadcasting of Parliament by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The first broadcast was on 10 July 1946. Since then ABC stations in all capital cities have carried proceedings whenever Parliament sat-either the House of Representatives or the Senate. During the 40 years an estimated 22,500 hours of debates, questions and answers, notices of motion, urgency debates, censure motions, personal explanations and any other element that makes up a day in Parliament have been heard in homes all over Australia. Parliament is not only Australia's longest running radio program; it probably holds a world record for the number of hours broadcast. The late Stan Bancroft helped set up the technical equipment and was one of the first operators. Mr Casey Visser has been in the booth for 21 years, and the present operator in charge, Mr Athol Dale, has been here for 19 years. Some of the well known ABC broadcasters who have been associated with Parliament are Eric Coleman, Malcolm Naylor, Arthur Wyndham, John West, Graham Conolly, Martin Royal, Kevin Chapman, Geoff Howard and Bruce Webster. I am sure that honourable senators are interested in those comments. Senator SIBRAA(New South Wales) —I seek leave, Mr President, to make a personal explanation on the grounds that I have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator SIBRAA —One of the requirements for the broadcasting of exerpts of Parliament is that fairness and accuracy should at all time be observed. I wish that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal could look at fairness and accuracy in broadcasting as far as talk-back commentators are concerned. I draw the Parliament's attention to ill-informed remarks made about me by a so-called expert on South Africa, John Tingle, on radio station 2GB Sydney. Mr Tingle referred to comments that I had made earlier in the week on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program and, after attacking my views on the African National Congress, he said that I had never been to South Africa and he implied that I knew nothing about that region. He then proceeded to interview Senator Jessop, who has just returned from South Africa and therefore knew all about the situation there. If Mr Tingle had contacted my office or me, he would have been informed that since I was first elected to the Senate and to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I have had a long involvement and a keen interest in the southern African region. Let me give some examples. I was Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee that produced the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee reports on Namibia and Zimbabwe and I was Chairman of that Sub-Committee when it produced three other reports on African references. I visited southern Africa as a member of two parliamentary delegations, and as Chairman of the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee I led the Australian delegation to the South African Development Co-ordination Conferences in 1985, in Swaziland, and 1986, in Zimbabwe. Recently I represented the Australian Labor Party at a special Socialist International conference on South Africa, at which I had discussions with the Chairman, Willie Brandt, who had been in South Africa prior to the conference talking to Botha and other prominent South Africans, including Winnie Mandela. I have visited South Africa. On the way to SADCC in 1985, and with the assistance of the Australian Embassy, I visited Soweto and other black townships, spoke to academics, businessmen, officials of the UDF-some of whom were subsequently charged with treason-the Black Sash organisation, and others. Earlier this year at SADCC in Harare, I specifically spoke to business and banking personnel who had head offices in South Africa-for example, Anglo-American, Barclays and Standard Chartered banks. I also spent some time in two areas of that country with white farmers, some of whom had returned from South Africa to live in Zimbabwe. I believe that on southern African issues I would be as well informed as, or better informed than, any member of this Parliament. At a more appropriate time, I shall place on the record my opinion of Mr Tingle's recent broadcasts from South Africa. Perhaps Mr Tingle did not contact me because he would not have liked the views that I would have expressed. However, I wish that he had had the decency not to misrepresent me in the way in which he did. I ask the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to look at a fairness and accuracy code. If it cannot accede to that request, it should look at the fairness and accuracy of the John Tingle program when the licence of 2GB comes up for renewal in public hearings. I trust that you, Mr President, will convey my views to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) -I present the 252nd report from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, entitled, `Job Seeker-Computer Acquisition by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations'. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GEORGES —by leave-This report contains the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the job seeker computer acquisition and related aspects of the automatic data processing operations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I intend to precis my statement and at the conclusion of my remarks I will seek leave to have the full text of my statement incorporated in Hansard. The Committee's principal concerns about the job seeker compute acquisition were reported to the Parliament in a statement I made to the Senate on 3 December 1985. I seek leave to incorporate a copy of that statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Parliament is aware that the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts has been given a standing reference to examine and report on major ADP acquisition proposals which exceed $5 million before they proceed to Cabinet for funding approval. When examining these proposals the Committee aims to ensure that they are properly planned and justified. However, it also recognises that if the Commonwealth is to get `value for money' from these proposals, subsequent purchasing action must also proceed in line with approved procedures. The Committee has been conducting an inquiry into the Job Seeker Computer Acquisition and related aspects of the ADP operations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Job Seeker project is intended to provide storage and update facilities for job seeker registration records through a network of computers located in Commonwealth Employment Service offices throughout Australia. This inquiry resulted from advice to the Committee of an unusual level of disquiet in the computer vendor industry about the conduct of this tender and, from serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General in his September 1985 Report about the adequacy of planning, cost/benefit justification and financial management supporting a previous ADP project in the Department, Job Bank. The Commonwealth's purchasing procedures are there to ensure, among other things, that public tendering is conducted in a thorough and impartial fashion. If these procedures and their purpose are not respected, the reputation of the Commonwealth in the market place for fair and responsible purchasing practices will be at risk. Responsibility for the proper observance of these procedures rests primarily with the purchasing Department although the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, as the Commonwealth's Contracting Authority, also has a clear responsibility for ensuring that Government purchasing procedures are followed. The Committee has been concerned to avoid unnecessary delay in its examination of the Job Seeker acquisition. It has therefore expedited its inquiries and is now in a position to provide a statement to the Parliament about its conclusions. The Committee's concerns about the Job Seeker Computer Acquisition are twofold. Firstly, the Committee has serious concerns about several documented instances during the evaluation of tenders, where proper procedures were not followed. The Committee has also noted some unusual and, in its view, unacceptable features of the recommended tender and proposed contractural arrangements with the recommended tenderer. Secondly, the Committee is not satisfied that adequate planning and evaluation was undertaken to support the particular implementation strategy chosen for the Job Seeker project. It has also noted the serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General of the Department's past performance in the conduct of proper planning and evaluation for the Job Bank project. The Committee will be providing a full report to Parliament on these matters in due course. The Committee has concluded that the tendering procedures may have compromised the impartiality of the tender recommendation, but it has also given careful consideration to the considerable costs resulting from tender cancellation and the consequent delay in the implementation of the Job Seeker project. Reluctantly it has concluded that these costs would outweigh the benefits resulting from the conduct of a new tender. The Committee is therefore recommending that the Job Seeker purchase proceed, subject to certain amendments being made to the proposed contract with the recommended supplier. The Committee is also recommending that before any further ADP procurement action is taken by the Department, it undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of its future ADP needs and represent the outcome in a revised ADP Strategic Plan. This should be supported by full documentation of the planning and justification for all proposed ADP acquisitions over the next three years. Of course, the Committee would expect that any ADP acquisition proposal costing more than $5 million will be referred to the Committee for examination and report under its standing reference. The Committee will be communicating its recommendations on these matters in greater detail to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services. For further information telephone Canberra (062) 727455. Canberra 3 December 1985 Senator GEORGES —The Committee's principal concerns stated at the time were: That proper planning and evaluation had not been undertaken to support the particular implementation strategy chosen for the job seeker project; there were documented instances during the tender evaluation where proper tendering procedures were not followed; in consequence, the impartiality of the tender result could not be guaranteed; and certain features of the original contract with the successful tenderer, Wang Computer Pty Ltd, were improper. The Committee, having given careful consideration to the costs resulting from the cancellation of the job seeker tender, recommended that the job seeker purchase proceed, in spite of its concerns. Since then, the concerns of the Committee have been reinforced and are a substantial part of this report. I must report also that there have been some disturbing new developments with the job seeker acquisition since the Committee finalised the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Recent advice to the Committee from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has indicated that Wang will not now be able to deliver certain critical outstanding functionality, as it contracted, by the due date of 30 June 1986. Wang has now lodged a claim for excusable delay with the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and has requested that the completion date for the supply of the outstanding functionality be extended by 12 months. In the light of these developments, the Committee strongly recommends that, unless Wang can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services that this delay has occurred for reasons outside its control, the Commonwealth should seek liquidated damages from Wang for any delay in delivery beyond 30 June 1986. The Committee is also of the view that, in the event of non-delivery of the outstanding functionality by 1 January 1987, the contract should be cancelled and full compensation should be sought by the Commonwealth for the major delay and dislocation which the non-delivery of this functionality will cause to the Commonwealth's employment and labour force programs. In the interim, the Committee endorses the stand taken by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in not approving any further acquisitions from Wang for the job seeker project or other projects in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which require standardisation on Wang equipment, pending a satisfactory resolution of the uncertainties about Wang's contractual commitments. The Committee believes that, notwithstanding the urgency of the job seeker project and other projects in that Department, it would be indefensible for the Department to purchase further equipment and consequently make a greater commitment to standardising on Wang equipment, while there remains uncertainty about Wang's ability to provide the full functionality required for the job seeker project. In conclusion, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has undoubtedly moved with great speed over the last few years in implementing computer-based information systems to support and expand the services it provides to its clients. However, in the case of the job seeker project, the Committee believes that this speed and the Department's disregard for proper planning and procurement procedures have undoubtedly resulted in much greater delay and cost than would have occurred had planning and procurement proceeded at a more considered and responsible pace. This is an important report and I thank the staff of the secretariat for their services and in particular I thank the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, for the preparation and dedication which are displayed in this report. I commend the report to honourable senators. I seek leave for the full text of my statement to be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- This report contains the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Job Seeker computer acquisition and related aspects of the ADP operations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. This inquiry resulted from advice to the Committee of an unusual level of disquiet in the computer vendor industry about the conduct of the Job Seeker tender and from serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General in his September 1985 report about the adequacy of planning, cost/benefit justification and management supporting a previous ADP project in the Department, Job Bank. The Committee's principal concerns about the Job Seeker computer acquisition were reported to the Parliament in a statement I made to the Senate on 3 December 1985. I seek leave to incorporate a copy of this statement. The Committee took the unusual step of making such a statement, prior to the completion of its inquiry and the tabling of its full report, because of the Committee's concern not to unnecessarily delay the implementation of the Job Seeker project and several other computer-based projects in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Committee's principal concerns stated at that time were that: proper planning and evaluation had not been undertaken to support the particular implementation strategy chosen for the Job Seeker project; there were documented instances during the tender evaluation where proper tendering procedures were not followed; in consequence, the impartiality of the tender result could not be guaranteed; and certain features of the original contract with the successful tenderer, WANG Computer Pty Ltd, were improper. The Committee, having given careful consideration to the costs resulting from the cancellation of the Job Seeker tender, recommended that the Job Seeker purchase proceed, subject to certain amendments being made to the proposed contract with the recommended supplier, WANG Computer Pty Ltd. Subsequent advice from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services indicated that most of these amendments were made before the contract was signed with WANG on 31 January 1986. The Committee does have some outstanding concerns about the inadequate level of compensation provided for in the contract with Wang in the event that Wang is unable to deliver certain critical outstanding functionality requirements of the Request for Tender by 30 June 1986. This was viewed by the Committee to be of paramount importance because Wang's commitment to deliver this functionality by 30 June 1986 had been a deciding factor in its winning the contract. Additionally this functionality was a mandatory requirement of the tender specification and crucial to the successful implementation of the Job Seeker system. There have been some disturbing new developments with the Job Seeker acquisition since the Committee finalised the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. Recent advice to the Committee from the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services, has indicated that Wang will not now be able to deliver certain critical outstanding functionality as it contracted, by the due date of 30 June 1986. Wang has now lodged a claim for excusable delay with the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and has requested that the completion date for supply of the outstanding functionality be extended by 12 months. In the light of these developments the Committee strongly recommends that, unless Wang can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services that this delay has occurred for reasons outside its control, the Commonwealth should seek liquidated damages from Wang for any delay in delivery beyond 30 June 1986. The Committee is also of the view that in the event of non-delivery of the outstanding functionality by 1 January 1987, the contract should be cancelled and full compensation be sought by the Commonwealth for the major delay and dislocation which the non-delivery of this functionality will cause to the Commonwealth's employment and labour force programs. In the interim, the Committee endorses the stand taken by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services in not approving any further acquisitions from Wang for the Job Seeker project or other projects in the Department of Employment and Industrial relations which require standardisation on Wang equipment, pending a satisfactory resolution of the uncertainties about Wang's contractual commitments. The Committee believes that, notwithstanding the urgency of the Job Seeker project and other projects in that Department, it would be indefensible for the Department to purchase further equipment and consequently make a greater commitment to standardising on Wang equipment, while there remains uncertainty about Wang's ability to provide the full functionality required for the Job Seeker system. In summary, the findings contained in the Committee's report fully confirm the concerns which I stated on 3 December 1985 to the Parliament. The Committee has concluded that the Department of Employment and Industrial relations and in particular, the Secretary of that Department, must carry principal responsibility for the improper manner in which this tender was conducted. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and its Secretary, given the clear responsibilities of that Department for ensuring that procurement proceeds in line with government purchasing practices and policies, must also carry major responsibility in this matter. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has undoubtedly moved with great speed over the last few years in implementing computer-based information systems to support and expand the services it provides to its clients. However in the case of the Job Seeker project the Committee believes this speed, and the Department's disregard for proper planning and procurement procedures, has undoubtedly resulted in much greater delay and cost than would have occurred had planning and procurement proceeded at a more considered and responsible pace. I commend the report to honourable senators. Senator VIGOR(South Australia)(3.20) —This is a very important report and I seek leave to move that the Senate take note of the paper so that it can be considered and debated at length in the next session. Leave granted. Senator VIGOR —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(3.21) —The Senate is debating the Futures Industry Bill 1986, the Futures Industry (Fees) Bill 1986 and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill 1986. These are important measures. They are low profile Bills, I suppose, to regulate a very high profile industry. They flow largely as a result of the changes made in banking regulations in December 1983 when the futures market became accessible to international clients. That was a most important factor in the development of this market. As the title of one of the Bills implies, this legislation forms part of the National Companies and Securities Commission package. In the sixth annual report of the Commission, the Chairman records: Trading in futures is developing rapidly and there are major opportunities for Australia in establishing international links. Competitive pressures create a particular urgency in this area. Both the market operators and the NCSC recognise the importance of the Australian futures market being seen to be efficient, competitive and fair by potential international collaborators. As recommended by the Campbell Committee, a Futures Bill is being produced which will create a new regulatory framework for the industry. It has been welcomed both by Australian and overseas operators. It is also welcomed by the Opposition, which will be giving the Bill its complete support. It is a long, complex and very detailed Bill-perhaps unnecessarily so in some respects. It runs to 160-odd clauses over 136 pages. It is interesting to compare that with the Ontario legislation which the Government claims it used as a model. That has a mere 66 sections in 39 pages. Indeed, this is the third Bill in the sequence. There were draft exposures of legislation prepared in both 1984 and 1985 which were subject to very extensive public comment and, in particular, to detailed analysis by bodies such as the business law section of the Law Council of Australia. Its recommendations have had a great influence in shaping the final nature of this Bill. The principal provisions of the legislation include the following: A system of licensing for all futures brokers, futures advisers and their representatives, whether or not they are members of the Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd; a wide definition of `futures contract' which will cover new forms of contract not yet developed and ensure that all trading in futures contracts is subject to similar prudential requirements; so-called anti-bucketing provisions, with a penalty of $10,000 or two years' gaol or both, for future brokers who trade off-market or outside the rules of the futures exchange or futures association of which they are members; an insider trading prohibition similar to section 128 of the Securities Industry Code; general anti-fraud provisions based on the United States of America Commodities Exchange Act and similar criminal penalties for market manipulation, false trading, market rigging, false or misleading statements, fraudulent inducement to deal in futures contracts and dissemination of information about illegal transactions; compensation for clients who suffer losses because of prescribed offences; powers for the National Companies and Securities Commission similar to those in the Securities Industry Code; the establishment of a Futures Consultative Committee to advise the Ministerial Council of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General; and requirements for brokers to maintain records, appoint auditors and keep clients' funds separate from their own. All of those are important provisions. Again, as I say, all those provisions have the support of the Opposition. The necessity for this legislation, I suppose, develops in an area where the increases in technology, particularly the technology of communications, have led to the establishment of world or, indeed, global markets. The first similar organisation specialising in dealing in futures was the Chicago Board of Trade, which started operating in 1848. It was only in 1960, however, that in Sydney the Greasy Wool Exchange Ltd was established and it became apparent fairly early in the piece that there was no major piece of legislation which regulated the operation of that exchange. Indeed, there was some suspicion that the New South Wales Gaming and Betting Act 1912 was the only piece of legislation which might be used to regulate the industry. So in 1979 the New South Wales Government enacted the Futures Market Act. That was a very short Act, subsequently amended in 1982. It ran to, I think, only 11 sections and a couple of Schedules spread over eight pages of legislation. The operation of the futures exchanges in Australia at the moment is fairly limited. The agricultural commodities traded include wool, trade steers and fat lambs, precious metals such as gold and silver and financial instruments of the 90-day bank accepted bill, two-year Treasury bonds, United States dollars, and share price index futures based on the Australian stock exchanges all ordinaries index. When that is compared with the rest of the world where articles as diverse as barley, iced broilers, butter, cattle, cocoa, coffee, copper, corn, cotton, eggs, frozen orange juice, gold, oats, palladium, petroleum, plywood, pork bellies, potatoes, silver, soya beans, stud lumber, turkeys, wheat, wool and zinc, among other things, are already traded on futures exchanges, it can be seen that the area of potential development of new agricultural and mineral commodities on the exchange is very extensive indeed. There has already been great progress made in the development of the growth of the futures exchange in Australia. For instance, one reads in the Chairman's message in the 1985 annual report of the Sydney Futures Exchange Ltd that the volume of trading in the Exchange's two most active contracts, the 90-day bank bill and the all ordinaries price index, and also the overall volume, rose by 140 per cent to an unprecedented 1.24 million contracts. The Chairman, Mr Oliver, goes on to indicate that the Exchange itself was very supportive of the Bill currently before the Senate. The Chief Executive in his report said: The volume of trading in 1985 increased more than two fold compared with the previous year, and for the first time in its history, overall volume on the Sydney Futures Exchange exceeded one million contracts. It is also worth noting that the Sydney Futures Exchange features in the table of the ten top stock index futures and option contracts in the world by volume in 1985 and the top ten interest rate futures and options contracts in the world by volume in 1985. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard two brief tables taken from the Futures Exchange annual report which indicate the volume to which I have been referring. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- Table 1 TOP 10 STOCK INDEX FUTURES AND OPTIONS CONTRACTS IN THE WORLD BY VOLUME IN 1985 Contract Exchange 1985 Volume 1. S&P 100 options... Chicago Board Options Exchange... 90 804 930 2. S&P 500 futures... Chicago Merchantile Exchange... 15 055 955 3. Major market index options... American Stock Exchange... 12 192 936 4. NYSE composite index futures... New York Futures Exchange... 2 833 614 5. Major market index futures... Chicago Board of Trade... 2 062 083 6. Value line index futures... Kansas City Board of Trade... 1 204 659 7. S&P 500 options... Chicago Merchantile Exchange... 1 090 068 8. MMI Maxi futures... Chicago Board of Trade... 422 091 9. All ordinaries index futures... Sydney Futures Exchange... 284 148 10. FTSE-100 index options... London Stock Exchange... 217 234 Table 2 TOP 10 INTEREST RATE FUTURES AND OPTIONS CONTRACTS IN THE WORLD BY VOLUME IN 1985 Contract Exchange 1985 Volume 1. US Treasury bond futures... Chicago Board of Trade... 40 448 357 2. US Treasury bond options... Chicago Board of Trade... 11 901 116 3. Eurodollar futures... Chicago Merchantile Exchange... 8 900 528 4. US Treasury note futures... Chicago Board of Trade... 2 860 432 5. US Treasury bill futures... Chicago Merchantile Exchange... 2 860 432 6. Eurodollar futures... London International Financial Futures Exchange... 1 293 028 7. Eurodollar options... Chicago Merchantile Exchange... 743 080 8. 20-year gilt futures... London International Financial Futures Exchange... 687 216 9. 90-day bank bill futures... Sydney Futures Exchange... 599 416 10. Three-month sterling futures... London International Financial Futures Exchange... 495 840 These tables were compiled by Futures and Options World magazine, London, from figures supplied by the exchanges concerned Sydney Futures Exchange figures have been adjusted to include EFPs. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. As I indicated, the area for expansion of the operations of futures exchanges hopes to be able to establish in the near future a United States Treasury bond futures contract compatible with the one traded on the Chicago Board of Trade. The volume of activity in this contract, the most active futures market in the world, and the fact that a similar contract is also traded on the London International Financial Futures Exchange, indicate that a Sydney contract in United States Treasury bonds would prove very attractive to international participants. I think it is important to understand that the great advantage we have in terms of the development of the futures industry in this county is simply that we happen to be situated in a very convenient time zone. The honourable member for North Sydney, Mr Spender, said in the debate in the House of Representatives on 29 April: The Australian market is now significant in international terms at least partly because of its position in the international time zone, its ability to trade when European and North American exchanges are closed and also the fact that when, in particular, North Americans and the British wish to trade, they can trade on a market where English is the spoken language; that makes it very simply a simpler operation for them. To that extent I think it is important that we realise that the futures industry is one of those areas in terms of an expansion of services of a financial nature which are potentially in a position to bring great revenue and great expertise into Australia and, in fact, to make their own contribution to the recovery of the Australian economy from the very parlous state in which we find it at the moment. It is part of the process by which financial markets are being opened up in Australia. For instance, quite recently the Sydney Stock Exchange approved 57 companies whose shares for the first time, in a quite legitimate and open fashion, could be subject to short selling. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a list of the 57 companies for which the short selling of shares has been approved by the Exchange. Leave granted. The list read as follows- ACI*, Advance Bank, APM, Ariadne, Arnotts, Ashton Mining, Aust. Found. Inv., ANI, ANZ Banking, Bell Group, Bell Resources, Bond Corp., Boral, Bouganville, Brambles, Bridge Oil, BHP*, Bundaberg, Coles Myer, CRA, CSR, Elders IXL, Email*, FAI Insurances, General Prop. Tr., Herald & W.T., Howard Smith, Hooker Corp., Humes, ICI Aust., IEL, James Hardie, Kern Corp., Lend Lease, McPhersons, MIN, Monier, Moonie Oil, National Bank, New Corp., North B.H., OPSN, Pacific Dunlop, Pancontinental M, Peko Wallsend, Petersville Sle, Pioneer Conc., Q'land Coal, Santos, Stockland Trust, TWT, WMC, Westfield Trust, Westpac Banking, Woodside Petrol., Woolworths, Wormald*. Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. Certain matters are excluded from the operations of this legislation. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) in his second reading speech indicated certain areas which I think simply need to be mentioned. He said: Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the regime that will apply in relation to the futures industry and the securities industry. At this stage, it is not proposed that the futures industry legislation should cover deliverable commodity options that are not traded on a futures exchange. If it becomes apparent that these or related arrangements are being used to circumvent the purpose and spirit of the legislation then the Ministerial Council will consider extending the scope of the legislation. So at this stage it is true to say that the legislation is not entirely an all-embracing document but that the Government has indicated that, if in the future it becomes necessary to review the operation, it has an open mind on that. I am very pleased to see that. There is only one matter I wish to raise with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans), who represents the Attorney-General, in order to seek his comments when he replies, that is, the representations which have been made on behalf of the Australian Merchant Bankers Association. The Association has indicated in a letter addressed to Senator Durack its concern that moneys which are held by futures brokers, funds which must be deposited with the broker to cover both the deposit needed on any contract and any calls-you will be aware, Madam Acting Deputy President, that calls must be made; the broker must call margins from clients as soon as the losses potentially exceed 50 per cent of the original deposit-are invested in a number of financial institutions. In fact, the legislation provides, through the guidelines operating in the Sydney Futures Exchange, for investment of client funds by brokers provided they are within the list of what are called `approved corporations'. The Australian Merchant Bankers Association makes the point that in the legislation as currently drafted the list of approved investments excludes all merchant banks. It goes on to demonstrate why it believes that merchant banks should be included. For the sake of time, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the letter from the Australian Merchant Bankers Association to Senator Durack. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AMBA AUSTRALIAN MERCHANT BANKERS' ASSOCIATION Incorporated in New South Wales 27th Level, 459 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000. Telex AA38309 Telephone (03) 61 2785 21 May 1986 Senator the Honourable P. D. Durack, Q.C. Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Senator Durack, The Futures Industry Bill 1986 is now before the Senate. The Bill is a complicated and lengthy document which attempts to regulate all sections of the futures industry with a view to protecting the investor who is involved in these areas. The Australian Merchant Bankers' Association is concerned that the Bill contains a provision which restricts the permitted areas of investment of brokers' trust funds to a degree which unfairly and unreasonably disadvantages merchant banks. When clients conduct business with a futures broker, funds must be deposited with the broker to cover the deposit needed on the contracts, and to also cover any calls for funds which may arise if losses occur on the contracts. Clients funds also accumulate when profits are made. Under the Futures Industry Bill these funds are referred to as segregated funds and must be kept in a trust account. The present Sydney Futures Exchange guidelines for investment of client funds by brokers provide a list of ``approved corporations'' and brokers are allowed to invest funds with companies which are included on this list. The majority of these corporations are merchant banks, and are mainly Members of the Australian Merchant Bankers' Association. As the legislation is currently drafted, the list of approved investments excludes all merchant banks. AMBA believes that provision should be made in the Bill to allow the arrangement to continue, and that futures brokers should not be prevented from investing trust funds with merchant banks. The Sydney Futures Exchange supports AMBA in this matter. Merchant banks, who are all classified as Money Market Corporations within the Financial Corporations Act, hold over 6% of the assets of all Australian financial institutions, a total of over 27.3 billion dollars. Merchant banks in Australia are a sound group, with the impressive parental backing of some of the world's largest financial institutions. AMBA understands that the provisions of the Bill are, in the main part, designed to protect the investor. The accomplishment of this aim is not assisted by the exclusion of merchant banks from the list of approved investment options for brokers' trust funds. AMBA suggests that the Bill be amended to allow for the inclusion of merchant banks in the list of approved investments. This could be accomplished by a number of methods for example: (a) As suggested by the Sydney Futures Exchange, in section 86 (5) (d) of the Bill a sub-paragraph (vi) could be added, which states: ``(vi) On deposit with any other corporation which has been prescribed for that purpose''. This amendment would give the government the power to prescribe corporations or groups of corporations, e.g. Members of the Australian Merchant Bankers' Association, as eligible investments. (b) An alternative to this approach would be to permit the Sydney Futures Exchange to specify approved investments, the additional paragraph could read: ``(vi) On deposit with any other corporation which has been approved by the Sydney Futures Exchange as an approved investment''. This would relieve the authorities of the burden of vetting companies for the purpose of this section and return the onus of selection to the Sydney Futures Exchange. (c) A third approach to this problem would be if the client was given the ability to approve areas of investment for his funds: Sub-paragraph (vi) could read: ``(vi) In a manner in accordance with the written directions of a person entitled to the money''. This would enable the broker to continue to invest trust funds in all the companies which are on the Sydney Futures Exchange's current list of approved investments, if the client gives his approval. The removal of merchant banks from the areas of approved investments for brokers' trust funds, seems contrary to other government initiatives designed to encourage the development of Australia's financial markets, and the governments' attempts to remove artificial and arbitrary barriers which unnecessarily distinguish between different sections of the financial community. Members of the Association have had a long established relationship with futures brokers and do not wish to have to curtail their involvement with the industry as it enters into the new and exciting phase of its development as a world class futures centre which this Bill will allow. We would be pleased to discuss this matter in further detail at your convenience. Yours faithfully John A. Hall Executive Director Senator PUPLICK —I thank the Senate. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate the basis upon which what I presume is a specific government decision has been made that this exclusion should apply. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying once again that the Opposition is in support of this legislation. Although it is a piece of regulatory legislation and, therefore, perhaps not as entirely fashionable as regulatory legislation used to be in past days, it nevertheless marks a further step in the maturity of Australian financial dealings and Australian financial institutions. It provides some protection for those who are investors, those who are speculators, those who are short sellers, and those who are hedgers who wish to take advantage of international trends and to become more properly and, I hope, more profitably, part of the international financial community. The increase in telecommunications in terms of its sophistication and speed and the unique position of the Australian market because of the time zone to which I have referred should bring about a development of the futures industry which will be profitable to those who invest and speculate and also to the nation as a whole. Therefore, the legislation is most welcome. We look forward to observing how it works and hope that the Government will keep an open mind on any future amendments which may be necessary. Under those circumstances, I have much pleasure, on behalf of the Opposition, in commending the Bill to the Senate. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.36) —In June 1982 the Ministerial Council of the National Companies and Securities Commission resolved to propose legislation regulating the futures industry. Draft legislation was circulated for comment in October 1984 and again in November 1985. Changes have been made to the legislation on the basis of those comments. The Futures Industry Bill, the Futures Industry (Fees) Bill and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill bring about a system for regulating future exchanges, clearing houses and future brokers. The Australian Democrats, who are not ideologically committed to either of the extremes in the regulation debate, have no difficulty in supporting regulatory legislation where it can be demonstrated that it is for the greater good of Australian business. We believe it is appropriate for government to protect innocents who can easily be fleeced when they get involved in complex financial transactions and investments. Of course, it is not just in the futures industry that people can lose a lot of money when they act on advice given by shonky financial advisers. I believe there are good grounds for regulating all financial and investment advisers. People investing their savings and superannuation on retirement ought to be confident that the professionals who advise them are bound by a strict code of conduct; that their advice is designed to benefit the client rather than themselves; and that action can be taken against financial advisers who seek to profit at the expense of their clients. In a complex deregulated financial environment, there are very good reasons to regulate financial advisers. The Futures Industry Bill forms part of the national uniform companies and securities scheme which established a Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities consisting of representatives of the Commonwealth and each of the States. This legislation is therefore before the Parliament following its unanimous approval by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities, representing Labor, Liberal and National Party governments. Each State has undertaken to apply this legislation and if we were to amend it such changes would have to have the unanimous agreement of the Ministerial Council. Hence the powers of this Parliament to amend this Bill and others which form part of the national uniform companies and securities scheme is conditional upon the willingness of the Commonwealth Attorney-General to take any amendment back to the Ministerial Council and then upon the unanimous approval of that Council in relation to initial legislation or the approval of a majority in the case of subsequent amending Bills. The Democrats do not seek to amend this legislation, although we have in the past sought to amend such legislation. Our problems with the legislation are set out in very great detail in the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills today. It is an extraordinary report. Again it draws attention to a whole range of matters. The Democrats are becoming increasingly unhappy that, when a committee of this chamber brings down an excellent report that we believe ought to be acted upon, we find that we are unable to do so. It seems that the veto which operates for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee comes for delegated legislation to the Ministerial Council-which is another matter about which the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is concerned. I wonder whether in reply the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) might be able to suggest some mechanisms by which the Ministerial Council might have more regard to the types of items that come forward from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is not a closed book by any means, or a well-kept secret, that the types of items which come before us from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee have come before us on innumerable occasions in the past. I would have thought that the time would be long since past when we would have had to continue with the charade of saying that we cannot do anything about an excellent report from the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. I hope that on future Bills which emanate in such a way following a report we will seek again to move amendments and hope that then they might be carried. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(3.40) —I am glad to hear Senator Macklin's remarks about the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I wish to raise some serious matters of principle that emerge from the report that clearly we are unable to deal with, and I regret that. I strongly support the concept of the Futures Industry Bill, the Futures Industries (Fees) Bill and the Companies and Securities Legislation Amendment (Futures Industry) Bill but I am concerned about the diminution of the powers of Parliament involved and certainly the allowing of excessive control to the Executive and to interstate commissions of the kind to which the Executive is responsible but over which the Parliament appears to be given no effective powers of supervision. That is a totally improper way to run a country. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported that the Bills form part of the national uniform companies and securities scheme. The power of the Commonwealth Parliament to amend Bills forming part of that scheme is conditional upon the willingness of the Commonwealth Attorney-General to take any amendment back to the Ministerial Council of the National Companies and Securities Commission. The unanimous approval of that Council is needed for initial legislation such as these Bills, or for the approval of the majority for subsequent amending Bills. Failing such approval the national uniform scheme would be placed in jeopardy. I stress that in the first place it is up to the Commonwealth Attorney-General to decide whether to take any amendment that we recommend back to that body. The operation of this aspect of the uniform legislation places the Parliament in an invidious position. If it amends legislation forming part of the uniform scheme or rejects such legislation it may bring the national uniform scheme to an end. On the other hand, if it fails to amend or reject such legislation, however compelling the grounds for action, it may be said to have delegated legislative power to the Ministerial Council without retaining even the equivalent of a power of disallowance. To the extent that it is possible for parliamentary amendments to be taken back to the Ministerial Council for approval, it may be said that it is the Ministerial Council which has a power of veto over the legislative action of the Parliament. Accordingly, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee drew this aspect of the national uniform scheme and of the Futures Industry Bill, as an element of that scheme, to the attention of the Senate in that it might be considered to constitute an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) has responded: The futures industry in Australia strongly supports the Bill and has called for its enactment as soon as possible in the public interest. In its submission on the Bill the Sydney Futures Exchange stated: ``The Exchange strongly supports the implementation of the Bill at an early date and would not wish enactment of the Bill to be delayed. The Exchange believes that it is important that the industry is, and is seen to be, appropriately regulated. We would agree with that- The Exchange is ready to perform its own role in the co-regulatory process. The Attorney-General goes on: Experience with the administration of the N.S.W. Futures Markets Act, the manner in which some members of the Sydney Futures Exchange have promoted and conducted their business, and the failure of some futures brokers, have indicated the need for Australia-wide legislation in this area. None of us on this side would disagree. No-one on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee would disagree. However, the Attorney-General went on: Most of the provisions in the Bill- that the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has drawn to the attention of honourable senators- are based on the corresponding provisions in the Companies Act 1981 and the Securities Industry Act 1980. To amend any of the provisions in the Bill would require the unanimous agreement of all the parties to the co-operative scheme. Not only would any attempt to amend the Bill result in a serious delay in its enactment, I am also not confident that all the States and the Northern Territory would agree to the amendment, particularly as it would be undesirable to have disuniformity between corresponding provisions in the companies, securities industry and futures industry legislation. We accept that. However, this response simply underlines the problem of the manner in which the Senate's powers are being diminished or being held hostage to decisions of the Executive. There are many areas where changes should be made to the manner in which this legislation operates and the detailed response of the Attorney- General to the concerns of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has in no way diminished these concerns. Questions such as the reverse onus of proof and self-incrimination are very serious matters which still exist and which make this legislation, in my mind, flawed legislation no matter how worth while and proper its objectives are. For example, this legislation empowers the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission to require various persons to produce books relating to dealings in futures contracts and like matters at a time and place specified in the direction of the Commission or by the authorised person as the case may be. Failure to comply with a requirement without reasonable excuse is an offence punishable by a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. It is not, however, stipulated in the legislation that the time and place specified by the Commission or the authorised person should be reasonable. The Committee recognises that the specification of an unreasonable time and place may give rise to a reasonable excuse for failure to attend and produce books, but it would prefer to see the requirement that the time and place be reasonable specified in the standard form of such provisions. Another clause provides that it a defence in a prosecution for an offence against sub-clause 15 (2) relating to furnishing information or making a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular if it is established that the defendant believed on reasonable grounds that the information or statement was true and not misleading. The effect of this sub-clause is to place upon the defendant the burden of exculpating himself or herself by establishing a defence on the balance of probabilities. Our view clearly is that the burden of establishing a defence-that is, the persuasive onus-should not be placed on defendants in criminal proceedings, but rather they should merely be required to bear the evidential onus, that is, the onus of adducing evidence of the existence of a defence, the burden of negativing then being borne by the prosecution. In the present case, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee noted that the usual form of provisions relating to false or misleading statements in Commonwealth legislation requires the prosecution to establish that the defendant made the false statement knowingly or knowing that the statement was false or misleading. The Committee questioned why in this case it had been considered necessary to reverse the onus of proof and, given that decision, why it had been considered necessary to impose on the defendant the persuasive onus of proof rather than merely an evidential onus. The Committee observes that its concern is that too great a burden should not be placed on the accused, thus reversing the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. There are many other instances, such as the one on self-incrimination. A person is not excused from making a statement relating to the compilation of books required to be produced under section 13 or section 14, or as to any matter to which any such books relate on the ground that the statement might incriminate the person. This departs from the usual form of such provisions in Commonwealth legislation in that it stipulates that the proviso applies only where the person required to make a statement claims before making the statement that it may tend to incriminate the person. The Committee suggested that the requirement that a person claim the privilege is better suited to situations where a person is being examined before a court or a quasi-judicial tribunal rather than to administrative contexts like the present. The Committee suggested that the authorised person should be required to caution the person to that effect before seeking the statement. These objections go on and there is very little time to make them, unfortunately. The Committee has written to the Attorney-General asking him to consider revising the customary form of such provisions with a view to strengthening the protection accorded to persons who may be required to incriminate themselves. Another sub-clause creates offences where a person in purported compliance with a requirement of an inspector or appearing before an inspector for examination furnishes information which is false or misleading in a material particular. Neither provision contains the usual requirement that the defendant know that the information is false or misleading with the result that under this Bill a person might be liable even if he or she quite innocently provided wrong information. The Committee cannot concede that the provisions are not ones of strict liability. To adopt the interpretation advanced by the Attorney-General in his response to the Committee would mean that, in the usual form of provisions relating to the furnishing of false or misleading information in Commonwealth legislation, the words `knowingly' or `knowing that the information is false or misleading' are superfluous. Moreover, if it is not intended that the offences be ones of strict liability, the Committee can see no reason, other than uniformity with the Securities Industry Act 1980, why it should not be made an express element of the offence that the defendant knew that the information furnished was false or misleading. I would like to make a couple of final points. Another clause prohibits insider trading in futures contracts concerning bodies corporate. It provides that, where a prosecution is instituted against a person for an offence because the person was in possession of insider information and dealt in a futures contract, it is a defence if it is established that the other party to the dealing also knew, or ought reasonably to have known, the relevant information before entering the dealing. The effect of the sub-clause is to place upon the defendant the burden, once again, of exculpating himself or herself by establishing this defence on the balance of probabilities. There are so many instances of such serious matters as more reversals of the onus of proof and more abrogations of customary rights, particularly the one whereby in fact the inability under this Act to obtain an undertaking as to damages from the Crown or its representatives may result in a court declining to grant an interim injunction since the giving of an undertaking is a major factor in determining the balance of convenience. The Committee's concern is that the court should not be prevented in appropriate cases from requiring an undertaking as to damages, as it would be under this legislation. In general, we cannot fix all these unfortunate parts of this Bill. We cannot make this flawed Bill totally acceptable in detail, even though it is in principle. I regret that. I believe that the Senate should take appropriate action to assert its rights in such matters. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.52) — Any reputation I might once have had for talking in this place under water with my feet enmeshed in concrete is being fast overtaken by the contributions now being regularly made by Senator Michael Baume, Senator Puplick, Senator Teague and God knows how many others who have burdened us with contributions this week. But I thank honourable senators for their participation in this debate and for their support for the measure. I will quickly respond to some of the matters which have been raised. Senator Puplick was fussing about the size of the Futures Industry Bill 1986 with its 160 provisions and compared it unfavourably with the Ontario Futures Act, which he said was only some 66 clauses long. I am advised by those on my left who know more about these things than I do, the departmental advisers, that the Ontario Bill is accompanied by regulations the size of half a telephone book, which is not intended to be the case here, save for some forms. Necessarily, this sort of legislation is complex. It cannot be done in quite as streamlined a fashion as people sometimes allege, and that is true of this particular measure. The general objections we have had to it the do not go to the policy but rather to the drafting with a lot of concern being expressed about not meeting the standards set out by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as appropriate for some of these procedural clauses. I simply make the point that not only is there a requirement for this sort of legislation to conform to the majority position of the other jurisdictions, which makes it difficult to amend it in a forum such as this, but the more immediate constraint on the drafting of this particular measure was the desire, for obvious reasons, to bring it into uniformity with the Companies Act 1981 and the Securities Industry Act 1980, both of which were drafted under the tenure of the Fraser Government. Any concern for a falling short of standards thought legally appropriate in some of these measures can be sheeted home elsewhere, I suggest, than to this Government. Senator Michael Baume —What are you going to do to fix it all up? Senator GARETH EVANS —If it is to be fixed-and that is not to make any concessions that, in respect of all of these clauses, the points can be made with equal vigour about matters in issue-I think realistically it is going to be only in the context of an overtaking of the present co-operative schemes by national Commonwealth legislation, which gets us straight back into the territory of the most appropriate way of legislating in the companies and securities and related areas. I would have no difficulty at all, as honourable senators would know, with the proposition that we ought to abandon this Heath Robinsonian nonsense which we have been saddled with now as a result of the obsession of the previous Administration with matters federalist and get on with devising a system of corporate regulation in this country which does not subject itself to the problems of lines of responsibility and legislative impotence which arouse indignation every time one of these Bills come into this place. I simply make the point that all of this is now at last the subject of a detailed reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I hope and expect that the sorts of concerns that have been expressed today would be raised in that forum and that in due course we can get to the stage of having a genuinely national system of corporate law rather than the muddle that exists at the moment. A number of the criticisms made by Senator Michael Baume should not go unanswered by the Government, and rather than dealing with them in any detailed way now I simply seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a reply made by the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) to Senator Tate, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, on 11 June. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 11 June 1986 Dear Senator Tate I refer to the letter from the Secretary of your Committee dated 30 April 1986 enclosing the extract from the Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 6 of 1986 concerning the Futures Industry Bill 1986. The issues the Committee has raised warrant careful consideration. Accordingly, I have set out my response below in relation to each of the specific matters together with several general introductory comments about the Futures Industry Bill and the particular considerations we have to take into account in relation to legislation falling within the co-operative companies and securities scheme. General introductory comments The futures industry in Australia strongly supports the Bill and has called for its enactment as soon as possible in the public interest. In its submission on the Bill the Sydney Futures Exchange stated: `The Exchange strongly supports the implementation of the Bill at an early date and would not wish enactment of the Bill to be delayed. The exchange believes that is is important that the industry is, and is seen to be, appropriately regulated, and the Exchange is ready to perform its own role in the co-regulatory process'. Experience with the administration of the N.S.W. Futures Markets Act, the manner in which some members of the Sydney Futures Exchange have promoted and conducted their business, and the failure of some futures brokers, have indicated the need for Australia-wide legislation in this area. An important aspect of the prudential controls in the Bill, is to ensure, in the public interest, the full investigation of matters peculiarly within the knowledge of one party. To this extent, the Bill corresponds with the Securities Industry Act 1980. Many of its provisions derive, of course, from that piece of legislation. To enable the National Companies and Securities Commission (`NCSC') properly to discharge its functions under the proposed legislation, and to ensure public confidence in the securities and futures markets, it is essential that the NCSC has adequate powers of investigation. Uniformity in the State and Territory law and administration relating to companies and the securities and futures industries is a major goal of the co-operative companies and securities scheme. The goal of uniformity is expressly referred to in Preamble (A) to the Formal Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States establishing the co-operative scheme. Most of the provisions in the Bill that your Committee has drawn to the attention of Senators are based on the corresponding provisions in the Companies Act 1981 and the Securities Industry Act 1980. To amend any of the provisions in the Bill would require the unanimous agreement of all the parties to the co-operative scheme. Not only would any attempt to amend the Bill result in serious delay in its enactment, I am also not confident that all the States and the Northern Territory would agree to the amendments, particularly as it would be undesirable to have disuniformity between corresponding provisions in the companies, securities industry and futures industry legislation. Sub-clauses 13 (3) and (4) The NCSC power to require the production of various books relating to the futures industry under clause 13, is based on section 8 of the Securities Industry Act. It is not considered that sub-clauses 13 (3) and (4) trespass unduly on personal rights and duties: although it is not specifically stated in these sub-clauses that the requirement to produce must be reasonable, it would appear to be an implicit requirement. Sub-clauses 13 (3) and (4) should be read, moreover, in conjunction with clause 15 of the Bill. This requires compliance with a request made under sub-clauses 13 (3) or (4) unless with `reasonable excuse'. There would be little doubt that `reasonable excuse' would include `an unreasonable requirement to produce'. It follows that these sub-clauses do not restrict the court's power, when hearing a charge arising out of non-compliance, to take into account any alleged unreasonableness affecting the legality of the requirement. Sub-clauses 15 (3), 18 (10) The Committee claims that the legal onus of proof has been shifted in these sub-clauses, contrary to the recommendations made by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in its Report, The Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings (Parliamentary Paper No. 319/1982). The approach adopted in these provisions is derived from similar provisions contained in the Securities Industry Act 1980: it is an approach attributable to and justified by the complex nature of the industry which it is sought to regulate. There are dangers in comparing provisions of this proposed legislation with clauses contained in Bills as diverse as the Veterans' Entitlements and Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Bills. More specifically, the element of intent or lack thereof in both these sub-clauses is more appropriately established by the person from whom production of documents is sought. The production of books and other documents and the provisions of information about their compilation is a vital aspect to the enforcement of the prudential controls under the legislation. This could be placed in jeopardy if too great a burden were to be placed on the prosecution. Sub-clauses 15 (6) and 18 (5) and (6) These sub-clauses provide that questions must be answered notwithstanding the fact that they may tend to incriminate. It is further provided, however, that where, prior to answering the question, the person claims that the answer might tend to incriminate, then the answer is only admissible in proceedings under the relevant clause. Similar provisions exist in the Securities Industry Act 1980. The Committee claims that the effect of the provisions is to trespass unduly on personal rights and duties: it compares the approach with that adopted in sub-clause 25 (2). There, formal notice must be given of the above. The distinction may be attributable to the fact that the exercise of the powers of the Commission and its agents is less formal under Division 1 than under Division 2: action under Division 1 is initiated by the NCSC whereas Ministerial involvement is required under Division 2. Clauses 15 and 18 are concerned with comparatively limited and clearly defined areas. The implications of investigations under clause 25 are far-reaching and arise from considerations of public or national interest. Experience with similar provisions in State companies and securities legislation suggests that special investigations are likely to result from recommendations arising out of investigating under the general powers of discovery contained in Division I. Although sub-clauses 15 (6) and 18 (5) and (6) abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination in so far as it might be available to avoid making a statement concerning books seized or information disclosed, they provide a safeguard against indiscriminate use of any incriminating statement or disclosure against the person making or providing it. Where a person claims that making a statement might tend to incriminate the person, the statement is not admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings other than in proceedings in respect of false or misleading information given by the person. Sub-clauses 25 (6) and (7) The Committee claims that neither of these provisions contains the usual requirement that the defendant know that the information furnished to an inspector upon examination, is false or misleading. Sub-clauses 25 (6) and (7) should be examined in the context of Division II as a whole. Clause 22 clearly indicates that investigations are matters of some gravity: sub-clauses (1) and (2) refer to ``public'' and ``national'' interest respectively. The Bill clearly anticipates that Division 2 proceedings will be quasi-judicial in nature: clause 26 provides that investigations will be deemed proceedings for the purpose of the application of the laws of evidence, and under clause 27, a record of examination may be made. Investigations are confined, by clause 23, to the matters specified in the instrument directing that they be held. Further, the persons required to assist with an investigation belong to a limited class: the persons considered to be in the best position to furnish the information required. Having regard to the above, it is not considered that the obligation cast on a prescribed person under these two sub-clauses is inappropriate. Furthermore, the construction of the clause may not support the strict liability interpretation cast upon it by the Committee. In both sub-clauses, the word `furnish', suggests an active participation by a prescribed person: the word `purports', used in sub-clause 25 (6) suggests an element of pretence or deception in the context of criminal proceedings, and section 36 of the Crimes Act 1914, applicable by virtue of sub-clause 25 (3), supports the inclusion of an element of `intent' or responsibility. These clauses are couched in language similar to sub-section 19 (5) of the Securities Industry Act 1980. Sub-clause 25 (10) The Committee claims that by removing the privilege against self-discrimination, this clause trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties. The rights of the individual must be weighed, however, against those of the public at large: if material is not disclosed because it may be incriminating, an investigator will not be in possession of all relevant information. It would be undesirable if attempts to regulate the futures industry were endangered by claims of privilege against self-incrimination. The area in which privilege is abrogated is clearly defined: it does not affect the claiming of privilege in any other area. Furthermore, as mentioned by the Committee, sub-clause 25 (2) ensures that sub-clause (10) is drawn to the attention of potential examinees. Sub-clause (10) ensures that any evidence given to an inspector which is claimed to be self-incriminating will be confined in its consequences to proceedings under clause 25. Sub-clause 129 (10) Comments made by the Committee here are similar to those made in relation to clauses 15 (3) and 18 (10). The prosecution must prove all elements of the insider trading offence to secure a prosecution, including the fact that the defendant had possession of price sensitive information that is not generally available. It would be too difficult in the context of futures trading if the prosecution had to go further and prove that the other party to the dealing did not know about the information before entering into the dealing. Insider trading offences are notoriously difficult to prove-in fact in Australia there have been very few successful prosecutions to date under the corresponding provisions of the Securities Industry Act 1980. Sub-clause 133 (2) Paragraph 133 (1) (d), to which this sub-clause refers, involves the recording or storing of information that the person knows to be misleading in a material particular, that results in inducing or attempting to induce a person to deal in a futures contract or class thereof. The provision is couched in similar terms to section 126 of the Securities Industry Act 1980. The defence to an offence under paragraph 133 (1) (d) rests on establishing that at the time when the defendant recorded or stored information, he or she had no reasonable grounds for expecting that the information would be available to anyone. The offence therefore already contains an element of `intent' to be established by the prosecution; it would be unreasonable to impose upon the prosecution the further obligation to establish that the person charged ought to have had reasonable grounds for expecting that the information would be available to any person. That person is clearly in the best position to establish whether or not this was so. Sub-clauses 144 (2) and 145 (2) Clause 144 deals with the concealing, destruction, mutilation or alteration of books relating to futures contracts, and clause 145 with the falsification of records. The defences to both offences necessarily involve an examination of the intention of the perpetrator of such actions: again, it is considered that that person is clearly the best person to explain his or her actions. Sub-clause 157 (7) The Committee claims that sub-clause 157 (7) would abrogate the customary right of a defendant against whom an injunction is granted to seek an undertaking from the plaintiff as to damages in respect of any loss flowing from the granting of an interim injunction. The sub-clause is similar to section 149 of the Securities Industry Act 1980. In fact, in cases involving the Crown or its representatives the granting of damages remains discretionary at common law: it is not an absolute privilege. Actions taken under this proposed legislation have no counterpart in ordinary litigation between subject and subject: here, breach of the law is harmful to the public at large, or at least, to a component thereof. The NCSC moreover, is not seeking to promote its own schemes, but to properly discharge its responsibilities under the legislation. Yours sincerely LIONEL BOWEN Senator M.C. Tate Chairman Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Senator GARETH EVANS —The final matters I seek to deal with are the concerns expressed by the Australian Merchant Bankers Association to which Senator Puplick referred which went to the limitations in this legislation on the way in which surplus funds in clients' segregated accounts may be invested. The scheme of the Bill is to enable surplus funds in such segregated accounts to be invested with entities similar to those in which a liquidator may invest surplus funds under section 426 of the Companies Act rather than the full array of investment avenues available under the present regime of the Sydney Futures Exchange. Some concessions have been made to open up the pool of investable funds by enabling investment in cash management trusts and clearing houses. That is in the nature of a compromise. The reasons for those two categories of investment opportunity being made available are simply that, in the case of cash management trusts, they themselves are subject to regulatory regimes of the Companies Act and the Securities Industry Act. Prospectuses are issued and approved and all the rest of it, so we have the kind of notional equivalent of a gilt-edged trustee investment security operating, so it is argued there. So far as the clearing houses are concerned, a particular clearing house that does operate for the Sydney Futures Exchange and the futures operation of the Melbourne Stock Exchange is International Commodities Clearing House Ltd which itself is owned and controlled by a consortium of six of the major British clearing banks and as such is thought to be a sufficiently rock solid investment opportunity to justify its being treated in this way. Senator Macklin —Ha, ha! Senator GARETH EVANS —I detect a note of cynicism and mirth on the other side, but I do not want to start a run on any particular institution so I will not endorse that. The difficulty is that our merchant banks are not subject to the same sorts of regulatory requirements, and while some would no doubt satisfy any conceivable regulatory regime there may be others in respect of which it would not be thought so appropriate to have them as available fund sources. So the argument goes that as the moneys in the client segregated accounts are similar to trust funds, it is desirable to limit the range of investments. The additions of the clearing house and cash management trusts are reasoned extensions of that principle. It must also be said that several of the major merchant banks operate cash management trusts, so they are not completely excluded from the range of investments. In any event, although the rationale I have outlined appears to me, anyway, to be reasonable, I will seek to ensure that the representations made by the Australian Merchant Bankers Association and endorsed here today by Senator Puplick are considered at the next ministerial council meeting, and I will advise the Attorney-General accordingly. If that ministerial council agrees with AMBA's submission, an amendment can of course be made to futures industry legislation at an early opportunity. I suggest that is an appropriate way of dealing with any lingering concerns that honourable senators may have on the matter. I commend the Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Ryan: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.01) —The Opposition supports the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill. I am particularly pleased that the Bill corrects a deficiency in the original Act to enable the Director of Public Prosecutions to engage persons on contractual arrangements and not under ordinary Public Service conditions. That was an omission from the original Bill passed by this Parliament nearly three years ago. I am only sorry it has taken the Government so long to correct it, because I think one of the main purposes of the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to have him in a position to obtain the best staff possible, and clearly the opportunity of being able to engage people on short term contracts for the experience and prestige gained from working in this office is important. At this stage I would normally sit down and assist the Bill's speedy passage, but the Opposition is very concerned about one matter in relation to the Director's office and his person which has occurred in recent months. I refer to the sustained assaults on the position of the Director, Mr Temby, which has occurred since December last year when he announced, perhaps not with the support but at least with the approval of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), that it was the Director's decision and not the Attorney's decision to prosecute the Premier of New South Wales for contempt arising out of some remarks he made following the announcement of a new trial for Mr Justice Murphy. Mr Wran immediately commenced a sustained campaign, over a period of more than a week in December last year, of attack on Mr Temby, questioning his motives. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I wonder whether it may not be the case that, no doubt unwittingly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is himself trespassing on what is forbidden on a reading of the sub judice rule in relating to the Senate matters which apparently are the subject of contempt proceedings against Mr Wran. Senator Durack —On the point of order, Mr Deputy President: I am not about to canvass the issue of the trial; namely, whether or not Mr Wran has been guilty of contempt. I would not dream of doing that. I propose to develop my concern about the way in which Mr Temby was attacked, and I was about to move from Mr Wran, who mounted the attack, to members of the Australian Labor Party in New South Wales. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Durack. There is no point of order at the moment. The rule in this chamber is that the sub judice rule applies if remarks would tend to limit the effectiveness of a fair trial. I ask you to bear in mind that Mr Wran may possibly be subject to future trial. Senator DURACK —I thank you; I am aware of that. I do not propose to dwell on the matter of Mr Wran but I have to refer to it because it was Mr Wran who initiated this series of attacks on Mr Temby over a period of more than a week in December last year. As I have said he was joined in a series of attacks on Mr Temby's integrity, methods and the way he was operating by the administrative committee of the New South Wales Labor Party and a group of officials from nine unions including, I regret to say, the Australian Workers Union. During the period from 12 December last year until 23 December last year the Attorney-General allowed the series of attacks to go on. He did not lift a finger or utter a word in support of Mr Temby. The allegations of political motives are quite remarkable in view of the fact that Mr Temby, who was appointed to his present position when he was holding the office of President of the Law Council of Australia, had on one occasion been a candidate for the Labor Party. The allegations of political motives by Mr Temby in this matter are quite outrageous. Although the Opposition moved this amendment in the House of Representatives when this Bill was there, it does not seek to continue its concern in this chamber, particularly not at this stage of the session. However, I am deeply concerned by the fact that the New South Wales Labor Party has returned an attack as recently as last weekend during its State Conference. It has again called for the resignation of Mr Temby and it is proposing to persist with this campaign at the National Conference of the ALP in a few weeks. In those circumstances Mr Bowen failed, until absolutely shamed into doing so by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-as I have said it took Mr Bowen 11 days-to come to the defence of Mr Temby and it is necessary that he again comes to Mr Temby's defence, probably at the National Conference of the ALP. For those reasons, I move: At end of motion, add: ``, but the Senate expresses its deep concern at the Government's failure to support and defend the independence and the integrity of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions against political and public attacks against the Director calculated to bring the Director, the office he holds and the administration of justice into disrepute''. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.08) —The Australian Democrats support the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1986 which is largely of a machinery nature in terms of a range of items. The Australian Democrats will be supporting the amendment just moved by Senator Durack on behalf of the Opposition. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Minister for Resources and Energy)(4.09) —I am indebted to Senator Durack and Senator Macklin for their support for the Director of Public Prosecutions Amendment Bill 1986. I am not at all indebted to them for their support for this squalid little motion which they seek to append to the Bill. I do not think it is appropriate, not least for the reasons indicated by Senator Tate that the essential subject matter of this argument will be before the courts very soon. I do not think it is appropriate for me to dignify this further little attempt to beat a drum with any kind of detailed reply. It is the case that the Attorney-General, Mr Lionel Bowen, has expressed his confidence in Mr Temby as Director of Public Prosecutions. It is also the case that Mr Temby is something of a public figure not least because of the very active role he has played, in a number of different senses, in the administration of criminal justice since I appointed him 2 1/2 years ago. He takes these things robustly. I do not think anyone attributes to what has occurred the same kind of sordid connotations that Senator Durack and his cohorts are all too inclined to place upon them. It is simply part of the rough and tumble of public life. I think the institutional pressures that operate on everyone in this area are well understood. I think that is where the matter ought to be allowed to rest not least because, as I have said, to the extent that potentially serious matters are involved they will be the subject of full scrutiny in a forthcoming criminal court. That should not in any way be second guessed, pre-empted or anticipated by debate in this place. There is no question of the Government accepting, without demur, this amendment. We will, of course, oppose it. We are disappointed that the Australian Democrats should feel inclined, as part of their swan song in this place, to lend their names to such an ill-conceived and ill-justified motion. Question put: That the words proposed to be added (Senator Durack's amendment) be added. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 28 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 2 —— Alston, R. K. R. Macklin, M. J. Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J. Baume, Michael Newman, J. M. Baume, Peter Parer, W. R. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Puplick, C. J. G. Boswell, R. L. D. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Carrick, Sir John Sheil, G. Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R. Chipp, D. L. Teague, B. C. Crichton-Browne, N. A. Townley, M. Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Vigor, D. B. Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S. Knowles, S. C. Watson, J. O. W. Lewis, A. W. R. Withers, R. G. Aulich, T. Georges, G. Black, J. R. Giles, P. J. Bolkus, N. Grimes, D. J. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasCoates, J. McKiernan, J. P. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCooney, B. Reynolds, M. Crowley, R. A. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Devlin, R. Ryan, S. M. Elstob, R. C. Sibraa, K. W. Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A. Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O. Kilgariff, B. F. Gietzelt, A. T. MacGibbon, D. J. Morris, J. Boswell, R. L. D. McIntosh, G. D. Jessop, D. S. Cook, P. F. S. Hill, R. Richardson, G. F. Collard, S. J. Tate, M. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-Pursuant to standing order 110 I give a notice of motion in general terms that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate adopt Resolutions relating to the Registration and Declaration of Senators' Interests. Consideration of House of Representatives message resumed from 5 June. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-proposed: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 372 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions. (2) That the provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. (3) That the foregoing Resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by Message. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.17) —The Opposition supports the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and the Leader of the Australian Democrats, nominating Senators Archer, Black, Cooney and Vigor to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That Senators Archer, Black, Cooney and Vigor, having been duly nominated in accordance with the Resolution of the Senate of 13 June 1986, be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Telecommunications Interceptions. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Community Services)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the grant of inalienable freehold title to the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community over an area of some 403 hectares in Jervis Bay Territory. The Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community is an established community comprising mainly descendants of the Jervis Bay and other tribes who once inhabited the general area. The land concerned at one time was gazetted as an Aboriginal reserve and administered by arrangement with the New South Wales Aborigines Protection Board. The land has always been regarded as a distinct Aboriginal area separate from other land in Jervis Bay Territory. Negotiations for land tenure, by way of a perpetual lease, commenced in 1973 and proceeded for about 10 years without resolution. During this period of negotiation a number of Ministers under previous Liberal Governments with responsibility for administration of Jervis Bay Territory gave support to the proposed tenure arrangements at Wreck Bay. Those Ministers included Senator Withers, the late Hon. Eric Robinson, the Hon. Tony Staley, the Hon. Bob Ellicott and the Hon. Michael Hodgman and I am sure on that basis that this Bill will have the support of the Opposition. This Government began negotiations with the community almost as soon as it assumed office in 1983, and in 1984 offered a land package, including a grant of inalienable freehold title to an area of approximately 403 hectares, to the Aboriginal residents of the Wreck Bay community. During this time there has been ongoing consultation with the community in relation to the land to be granted and the arrangements to apply after that date. It is appropriate in this case that, as the land concerned is under the direct control of the Commonwealth, the Government is able to give effect to its policy of providing secure tenure to land in respect of Australia's indigenous population. Scheme of the Legislation Under the arrangements proposed, title to the land will be vested in the Wreck Bay Community Council under a trust arrangement. The functions, powers and administrative arrangements in respect of the Council are detailed in the Bill. No sale or mortgage of any part of the land will be permitted. However, the Council will be empowered to issue leases of land to members of the community for residential purposes and other leases to persons wishing to obtain an interest in the land for commercial purposes subject to the approval of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Public roads through the grant area will be excluded and members of the public will continue to have access to facilities in the Summercloud Bay area which they currently enjoy. Because of the importance of some places of special significance from an Aboriginal point of view in the area of the grant the Bill makes provision for those places to be protected. In addition, the Bill provides for the grant of title to further land adjoining the grant area if justified to the satisfaction of the Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs and Territories. Financial Impact New or additional costs to the Commonwealth in providing title to land to the Wreck Bay Community will be minimal. Annual costs associated with the administration of the Council will be met by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Commonwealth assets on the land, including houses, will vest in the Council. Conclusion This Bill secures the land to be granted for present and future generations of Aboriginal people at Wreck Bay. I commend this Bill to the Senate. Senator GRIMES —I table the revised explanatory memorandum for the Aboriginal Land Grant (Jervis Bay Territory) Bill 1986. The PRESIDENT —Order! Pursuant to order of the Senate of 14 April 1986, the resumption of the debate shall be an order of the day for the first day of sitting in August 1986. Debate resumed from 12 June, on motion by Senator Gietzelt: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.21) —Mr President, I am particularly angry that this priority Bill-the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Bill 1986-is not going to be finalised during this period of sittings. I think that anger is shared especially by the Labor women members of the Senate. It was intended that this important part of the Government's reform program would come into effect on 1 August this year. However, the legislation will have to be debated in the Budget session beginning on 19 August because we have not been able to get co-operation to ensure its speedy passage. Because of the length of time needed to debate this matter, taking into account the number of speakers who are proposing to speak and the whole swag of amendments that are to be moved-I think we know how Senator Walters can dominate this place and take business out of the hands of both the Government and the Opposition-it is just not going to be possible to finish the Bill this session. The Government regrets that. I have risen merely to explain that the Government still wishes to deal with the Bill urgently. The Manager of Government Business (Senator Grimes) has promised that it will be given absolute priority at the beginning of the August session. Since the Bill cannot pass all stages at this time and as everyone obviously wants to catch a 5 o'clock plane, I want to save my remarks, which are in wholehearted support of this Bill, for when the debate is resumed in August. I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-proposed: That the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 19 August 1986 at 2.00 p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy-President, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.24) —I wish to move the usual amendment which has been moved for many sessions now. I move: At end of motion add: Provided that the President, upon a request or requests by an absolute majority of the whole number of Senators that the Senate meet at a certain time, shall fix a day and hour of meeting in accordance with such request or requests, and such time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator. For these purposes a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Opposition in the Senate shall be deemed to be a request by every Senator of the Opposition and a request by the Leader or Deputy-Leader of the Australian Democrats shall be deemed to be a request by every Australian Democrat Senator. Provided further that the request or requests may be made to the President by leaving the same with, or delivering the same to, the Clerk of the Senate, who shall immediately notify the President. In the event of the President being unavailable, the Clerk shall without delay notify the Deputy-President, or, should he be unavailable, any one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, who shall be deemed to be required by the Senate to summon the Senate on behalf of the President, in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.25) —I simply want to thank the Presiding Officers, the President and the Speaker, in anticipation of their making available the parliamentary dining room on 15 September for a meeting of the Australian Parliamentary Christian Fellowship, when it is intended to hold a national prayer breakfast. On behalf of that organisation within the Parliament, I thank you, Mr President, and the other Presiding Officer for your grace in this matter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 4.26 p.m., until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 August 1986, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution passed earlier this day. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 777) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 6 December 1985: (1) Did a West African Airlines Boeing 707 aircraft, Registration 9G-Alpha Charlie Yankee (ACY), owned by a Swiss financier, registered under a Ghanaian flag and crewed by non-Australians, operate a charter cargo flight between Melbourne and Perth on 28 November 1985 with the approval of the Department of Aviation. (2) Was the cargo carried on behalf of Ansett Airfreight. (3) Was the cargo offered to other Australian registered cargo operators such as TAA, assuming that Ansett could not carry cargo on its own aircraft, and that the Department of Aviation will not allow Qantas to carry such cargo. (4) Was approval for such a flight outside both the old and the new Aviation Freight Policy which I understand stipulates preference on such flights for Australian registered and crewed aircraft. (5) Was the aircraft for the flight in question operated on behalf of Transcorp, a Perth-based international charter operator. (6) Did Ansett Transport Industries, just prior to the flight in question, acquire a 51 per cent equity in Transcorp, a fact now made public in the 6 December 1985 edition of the Australian Financial Review. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, however the name of the airline in question was West Coast Airlines. (2) Yes. (3) Under current policy, foreign based carriers may be permitted to carry domestic freight for an Australian domestic carrier where neither another Australian domestic carrier in the first instance, nor Qantas, as part of its regular international services, can carry the freight within a reasonable time. In relation to the particular instance you raised, approval for the Melbourne/Perth carriage of the freight by Transcorp Airways was agreed to on the basis that no other domestic carrier was able to carry all or part of the freight. Qantas was not involved as it does not operate a regular international service which includes flights between Melbourne and Perth. I am advised that, on this occasion, Ansett Air Freight did not approach TAA and the Company has been reminded of the requirement to do so in future. (4) As indicated in (3) above, the Melbourne-Perth flight was approved under long standing policy relating to carriage of domestic freight. The new aviation freight policy relates to the carriage of freight over international sectors. In the case of the flight in question, which proceeded from Perth to Brunei and Singapore, Australian based airlines were offered the opportunity to operate this sector of the charter flight on the basis of matching the charter price and date of operation. None indicated a willingness to do so. (5) Yes, the aircraft was operated on behalf of Transcorp Airways Pty Ltd, a company based in Perth at the time of the charter. (6) No, discussions for the purchase of shares in Transcorp Airways Pty Ltd were at an advanced stage at the time of the charter, but contracts were not executed until 31 December 1985. (Question No. 1065) Senator Jones asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 7 May 1986: (1) Do the various media reports of Monday 5 May 1986, including one in the Sydney Morning Herald headlined: ``Part-time work soon to be official in PS'' (Public Service) which indicates the Federal Government is on the verge of introducing permanent part-time work, initially for up to 3 per cent of its 250,000 member workforce, have any substance. (2) What is the rationale behind any such consideration. (3) What is the level of demand for such working conditions from (a) the trade union movement; (b) the Commonwealth Public Service Board; (c) male employees of the Australian Government; and (d) female employees of the Australian Government. Senator Walsh —The answer to the honour- able senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes. On 6 May 1986 the Australian Government Employment Permanent Part Time Work (ACOA) Award was made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission enabling those categories of staff employed under the Public Service Act who are covered by the Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association (ACOA) access to permanent part time work in the Australian Public Service. Approximately 66,000 staff are covered by this award. However, the Government has agreed with the ACOA that, initially, the number of part time officers shall not exceed a limit of 3% of the total number of full time officers in ACOA's area of coverage throughout the Australian Public Service. A permanent part-time work award for members of the Professional Officers' Association (POA) was made on 26 May 1986. No formal limits apply to the POA award. An award is expected to be made shortly for members of the Federated Clerks' Union in the Australian Taxation Office. (2) In its December 1983 policy paper ``Reforming the Australian Public Service'' the Government announced that, associated with its policies on equal employment opportunity, permanent part time employment would be introduced into the Australian Public Service. Permanent part time work will allow greater flexibility in staff utilisation and broaden the market for recruits. It will also make it possible for the Government to retain the skills, expertise and experience of staff who for personal or family reasons do not wish to work on a full time basis. (3) It is difficult at this stage to assess the precise level of demand for these working conditions. (a) Some areas of the trade union movement support the introduction of part time work. Unions with which agreement on part time work arrangements has been reached or is expected to be reached shortly are referred to in part (1) of this reply. (b) The Commonwealth Public Service Board strongly supports the introduction of permanent part time work. (c) and (d) Representations made to me, the Public Service Board and departmental managements suggest that there is strong interest in the introduction of permanent part time work from both male and female officers. Senator Button —On 28 May 1986 (Hansard, page 2871), Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Science, a question without notice about a report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee and about delays experienced and fees payable in processing patent and trade marks applications. The Minister for Science has provided the following information in response to the honour- able senator's question: The report of the Industrial Property Advisory Committee (IPAC) was released for public comment in November 1984. The report, which makes 46 recommendations and took nearly five years to complete, followed a very wide-ranging and detailed study of the Australian patent system. Written submissions on the substance of the report were invited from interested groups. Forty-five submissions were received in the period to August 1985, a number having been the subject of prior informal discussion with the Patent Office. The Patent Office then undertook the preparatory work necessary for formal interdepartmental consideration, which commenced in March 1986. It is expected that a draft response to the report will be available for consideration by the Government shortly. The current delay for processing trade mark applications is 2 years. This is largely due to the cumulative effect of previous restrictions on staff resources, compounded by a large increase in the lodgment rate of applications since 1979 when registration of trade marks for services was introduced. This situation is not satisfactory for users or the Government and in consequence the Government, in 1983, instituted a 3-year program for upgrading operations through computerisation and, in 1985, approved the recruitment of additional staff so that delays would not increase after the new staff and computer-based systems became fully effective. In the case of patents, the Patents Act provides a system of deferred examination in which an application is not examined unless and until an applicant so requests. The Commissioner of Patents may, however, direct an applicant to request examination and, in practice, about 85% of applicants wait for such a direction to be issued. Directions are issued at present about 23 months after an application is completed. The average total of the time then taken for applicants to request examination and for a first report to be issued by an examiner is about a further 9 months. An applicant can, however, request examination at any time after the application is completed, without waiting for a direction from the Commissioner. An applicant can also request, in certain circumstances, that examination be expedited in order to have set aside the requirement that applications be examined as far as practicable in order of request. In practice, about 15% of applicants voluntarily request examination and less than 1% request expedited examination. In order to reduce waiting times by 1991 to 6 months in the case of trade marks and 18 months in the case of patents, the Patent and Trade Marks Offices have formulated a 5-year plan, the implementation of which is, of course, subject to normal budgetary consideration each year. It is not possible to provide an accurate and meaningful comparison between the costs of obtaining a patent in various countries because of the differences which exist between countries in the numbers and types of fees levied at different stages between application for and grant of a patent. However, assuming that the simplest course is followed, that no additional charges are incurred, and that grant follows application in average time in each country, the latest information available in the Patent Office on the approximate costs of obtaining a patent is: Country $A (approx.) United States... 1,090 Canada... 980 France... 780 Australia... 695 Federal Republic of Germany... 620 Sweden... 500 Japan... 390 United Kingdom... 360 New Zealand... 120 It is Government policy that the Patent Office operate in such a way that the fees it collects will cover at least its operating expenses and overheads such as notional superannuation and rent. This requirement sets the overall parameters for patent fees and, unlike in a number of other countries, involves no Government subsidy for the Office's operation. Nevertheless, official fees payable in order to obtain patent protection in Australia are unlikely in most cases to be significant in comparison with overall costs (including those for research and development, market research, marketing, manufacture, and distribution) of bringing a new product or process on to the market. (Question No. 525) Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 10 September 1985: Has there been a marked increase in the incidence of amendments to, and delays in, scheduled departure times from Australian airports; if so, why have these amendments/delays occurred. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Commonwealth's responsibilities in relation to airline schedules are primarily concerned with safety and operational matters relating to air navigation. The design of schedules to meet travellers' needs and the utilisation of aircraft fleets are matters for the airlines' commercial judgments. In approving the airlines' proposed schedules under the Air Navigation Regulations, my Department examines such operational/safety related matters as the availability of air traffic control, flight service facilities and apron parking. In addition, my Department responds to proposed variations to specific flights in terms of its responsibilities for safety through established arrangements and procedures for the submission of flight plans and air traffic control. The extent to which airlines amend scheduled departure times and the incidence of delays in aircraft departures are primarily matters for the airlines, which also have responsibility for any necessary corrective action. (Question No. 621) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 November 1985: (1) Has the Australian Government given any undertakings to the United States Government in regard to the continuation of the agreement for the Pine Gap Joint Defence Facility, in view of the agreement relating to the establishment of a Joint Defence Space Research Facility 9/12/66 as extended and amended by an exchange of notes of 19/10/77 (ATS 1977 No. 24) (see answer to Question on Notice No. 224, Hansard, 11 October 1985, p. 1124); if so, when and what was the content of such undertakings. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No. There is no requirement for any undertaking about continuation of the Agreement at the end of its non-terminable period. As noted in the answer to Question on Notice No. 224 (Senate Hansard 11 October 1985, p. 1124), action is only required if either Government wants to initiate action to terminate the Agreement. (Question No. 935) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 11 March 1986: (1) Has there been an increase in expenditure on foreign aid by other Government bodies (including State governments) since 1982. (2) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs explain how that figure has grown from $2m in the last Fraser Budget, to $6.8m in the 1984-85 Budget, to reach $28.6m in the 1985-86 Budget. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) There have been different methods of reporting projected aid expenditure in budget papers in recent years. It was not until 1985-86 that all expenditure by departments other than the Department of Foreign Affairs was drawn together in Table 2 of Budget Paper No. 9. The one exception is Treasury payments to international finance institutions such as the Asian Development Bank which, for clarity of presentation, are included with ADAB payments to the same institutions. In addition, expenditure by State governments has only been included in Budget papers since 1984-85. Actual figures for expenditure by all State and Commonwealth government bodies other than through the Foreign Affairs portfolio are as follows: ($ million) Treasury Other Total 1982-83 13.8 20.8 34.6 1984-85 21.3 28.6 49.9 1985-86 (est.) 21.9 26.8 48.7 (Question No. 983) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 18 March 1986: (1) Has the Australian Capital Territory Health Authority recently advertised that a Mr Ron Gordon will soon take up the position as Senior Executive Fellow with the Authority in May 1986. (2) Will the Fellowship entail travel for Mr Gordon. (3) What are the details of the Fellowship, such as salary and other benefits. (4) What is the itinerary that Mr Gordon will have for his overseas trip. (5) What is the total cost of the trip and what are the component parts of such cost. (6) How was Mr Gordon selected and who else applied for the position of Senior Executive Fellow. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No, the ACT Health Authority did not advertise that Mr Ron Gordon will take up the position as Senior Executive Fellow. A special Authority Staff Bulletin of 10 March 1986 did advise that Mr Gordon was to take up his Senior Executive Fellowship. This referred to the fact that Mr Gordon was awarded a Fellowship by the Public Service Board on 11 April 1985 under its Senior Executive Fellowship program, which was introduced in 1983 to assist the development of senior managers. (2) Yes. (3) The details of the Fellowship program are contained in the Public Service Board's Senior Executive Fellowship pamphlet. During the period of a Fellowship normal on-duty arrangments, including an officer's salary and leave entitlements, apply. The conditions relating to overseas service, set out in Volume 9, Part 2, of the Public Service Board's Personnel Management Manual, also apply. (4) The itinerary for Mr Gordon's overseas travel is as follows: May 5-May 11 SWITZERLAND World Health Organisation Swiss Institute for Health and Hospitals Lausanne Hospital May 12-May 16 NETHERLANDS Ministerie van Welzijn Volksgezandheid & Cultur National Hospitals Council May 17-June 13 SCANDINAVIA Stockholm County Council Medical Services Board Institute for Planning & Rationalisation of Health and Social Welfare Services (SPRI) Dr Vuori-W.H.O. Regional Office Sundhedsstyrelsen-National Health Service of Denmark Danish Hospital Institute Association of County Councils in Denmark Institute for Almenmedisin, Bergen Finnish Hospital League June 28-July 11 UNITED KINGDOM Department of Health and Social Security National Health Service Nuffield Centre for Health Services Studies at University of Leeds Oxford Region Office (Dr R. Rue) Northern Ireland Department of Public Health-(Dr Hall) July 12-July 16 CANADA, OTTAWA Department of National Health and Welfare Canadian Hospitals Association July 17-August 1 United States of America Victor Kramer & Co. (Large hospitals' laundry) Several different types of hospice units University of Chicago Centre for Health Administration studies American Hospitals Association American College of Health Service Administrators Peat Marwick Mitchell-Health Systems Group Ernst & Whinney Healthcare Data Systems Div. Louden & Associates, Health Consultants Michael Reese Hospital & Medical Centre, H.M.O. Humana Ltd (health services chain) August 16-August 22 CANADA, BRITISH COLUMBIA B.C. Ministry of Health B.C. Long Term Care Program Vancouver General Hospital University of British Columbia Health Admin. School and University Hospital August 23-August 29 United States of America, CALIFORNIA Kaiser Permanente H.M.O. Kaiser Permanente Hospital Oaklands Saga Corporation Menlo Park (large food service company) 5. The total cost of the fellowship is $32,247, and includes travel and accommodation for Mrs Gordon who is eligible under the conditions of the Senior Executive Service to accompany her husband. The component parts of the total cost are: Accommodation and Travelling Allowance $17,836 Other miscellaneous expenses $ 2,063 Air fares $12,348 (subject to confirmation) TOTAL $32,247 (6) Mr Gordon applied for the Fellowship on 11 December 1985 in response to the advertisements in the Public Service issue of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 4 and 11 October 1985. The selection of Mr Gordon and the selection of any other successful applicants was the responsibility of the Public Service Board. The estimated cost of obtaining the information and preparing the answer to this question is $100. (Question No. 988) Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: Does the Australian Government have any indication of any plans by the French Government to set up a base which is capable of accommodating nuclear submarines in the South Pacific and particularly New Caledonia; if so, what is the Australian Government's response to this proposal. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Following the then French Defence Minister Charles Hernu's visit to New Caledonia in May 1985, the French Government announced plans to improve the naval facilities in New Caledonia. The proposals include lengthening of the existing quay and the establishment of alongside facilities suitable for submarines at the Noumea Naval Base. As far as the Government is aware, no construction work has yet been undertaken. However, as was demonstrated by the 1985 visit by the French submarine RUBIS, arrangements can be made to accommodate visits by nuclear-powered submarines at the existing base. The Australian Government would like to see the South Pacific region remain free of external military confrontation and rivalry. Moreover, it could not but oppose any measures which might have the effect of assisting or reinforcing the French nuclear testing program in the South Pacific. However, while Australia has signed the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and is actively encouraging all major nuclear weapons states, including France, to sign the Protocols to the Treaty, the Government recognises that the Treaty does not prevent the passage through the region of any ships or aircraft of any nation. Further, the Treaty allows for each signatory to the treaty to determine its own policy on ship and aircraft visits. (Question No. 1023) Senator Sanders asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 April 1986: (1) Has the Materials Research Laboratory at Maribyrnong taken delivery of a high voltage pulse generator during 1985 or 1986; if so, what is the name of the manufacturer of the generator, and what are its principles of operations, and technical specifications. (2) Is the pulse generator intended for use in research on the Electro-Magnetic Railgun; if so, in what aspect of that research will it be used; if not, what is the intended use. (3) Does the research to be conducted with the pulse generator have application to research and development of space-based weapons. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes, the Materials Research Laboratories took delivery of a high voltage pulse generator during February 1986. The manufacturer is Pulsar Products, USA. It operates on the basis of a high voltage direct current source feeding a capacitor. A spark gap switch enables the capacitor-stored energy to be discharged through an external load. The model FRP-50 procured has the following technical specifications: peak output voltage: 50,000 volts source capacitor: 20 nano-farads peak stored energy: 25 joules pulse shape: double exponential pulse rise time: less than and up to 10 nanoseconds repitition rate: single shot to one shot per 10 seconds (2) The pulse generator is not intended for use on rail gun research. Its intended use is to support experimental work on the protection of electronic and/or communications equipment from damaging electric or magnetic fields. (3) No, my Department is not involved in research and development of space-based weapons. (Question No. 1034) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Is it expected that the allocation provided under Additional Estimates for the provision of services to Aboriginal groups who have obtained suitable tenure of community living areas on Northern Territory pastoral properties will be sufficient to meet the demand for provision of these services. (2) How many applications have been received to date for excisions of land from Northern Territory pastoral properties. (3) How many of these claims have been successful. (4) How many of these claims have been unsuccessful. (5) Have any claims been varied; if so how many and in what respect. (6) How many claims are presently being processed. (7) What is the average time taken for the processing of claims. (8) Have there been any delays in processing claims; if so, for what reasons. (9) Has the scheme been successfully operated on a voluntary basis between pastoralists, Government and Aboriginals. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions: Question 1: In the financial year 1985/86, yes. Questions 2-9: The Northern Territory Government has stated that at 30 April 1986 there have been 95 expressions of interest in this area and 57 of these are being processed. I am informed that 27 formal agreements are in place between communities and pastoralists. The Northern Territory Department of Lands has the primary responsibility for the administration of excisions in respect of pastoral leases and applications for living areas are being processed by that Department under Territory guidelines. It is true that there have been long delays in the processing of agreements but those delays are not necessarily confined to any one party involved to a predominant degree. My Department does not maintain complete particulars of all expressions of interests in respect of the investigatory and processing action taken. That information is maintained by the Northern Territory Department of Lands. One title in respect of land excised from a pastoral lease has been registered to date and it is understood that other titles will be registered in the near future. A Committee of Review has been established to resolve difficulties and reduce delays in respect of applications for living areas. The Committee provides for representation of the Northern Territory Department of Lands, the Cattlemen's Association, the Land Councils and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. To date there has been a good deal of cooperation displayed between pastoralists, Aboriginals and government agencies involved in the scheme. (Question No. 1035) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 30 April 1986: (1) Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs satisfied that the Northern Territory Trachoma Control and Eye Health Committee, the majority of which comprises Aboriginal people, is efficient and effectively carrying out programs to deal with trachoma in Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory? (2) Does the National Aboriginal Health Organisation plan to seek funds to carry out similar trachoma control and eradication programs; if so, does the Minister believe that such duplication is necessary, in view of the way in which the present scheme is operating? Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Yes. (2) On 8 May 1986, I discussed the future arrangements for the delivery of trachoma and eye health curative and preventive services to Aborigines with Professor Fred Hollows, representatives of the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO), and the Northern Territory and State Trachoma Eye Health Committees. This meeting was the last of a number of detailed discussions concerning the recommendations of the Trachoma and Eye Health Report produced by a committee comprised of NAIHO, my Department, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Professor Fred Hollows. The meeting recommended continuation of the attack on trachoma with a greater emphasis on the involvement of Aboriginals and Aboriginal Medical Services as well as the continued funding of existing services that are delivering effective programs. The Government endorses this approach. I have therefore decided not to accept the Report's recommendations concerning a national trachoma secretariat and a national program funded through NAIHO. (Question No. 1043) Senator Kilgariff asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1986: (1) Are negotiations being conducted between the Northern Land Council, the Aboriginal traditional owners and mining companies to allow exploration and mining of new uranium deposits on Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory. (2) If the Aboriginals and mining companies reach an agreement that complies with all the requirements of the Northern Territory Land Rights Act, will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs approve these agreements. (3) Has the Central Land Council made a decision to transport 60 Aboriginal people from central Australia to the Ranger uranium mine to ascertain the effect of uranium mining before considering negotiations with mining companies for new uranium mines in central Australia. (4) Does the Government have any intention of allowing further exploration and development of uranium in light of the considerable expenses being incurred by the Northern and Central Land Councils in their quests to negotiate exploration and development of new uranium mines; if not, will the Government recompense these land councils the money they will have outlaid. (5) If the Government has no intention of allowing further development of the uranium mining industry, does the Minister agree that the Aboriginal people involved are being led up the garden path. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions. (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) The Australian Government has no objection to further exploration for uranium taking place in the Northern Territory. However, miners are aware as to what the Government's policy is in relation to the development of new uranium mines and accordingly, investment decisions by miners would no doubt be made having regard to that policy. Similarly, Land Councils enter into negotiations with miners on the same basis. (5) No. (Question No. 1095) Senator Reid asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 28 May 1986: (1) Does the National Capital Development Commission have plans to include a ``Water Park'' in the plans for the Tuggeranong Town Centre. (2) Are plans for the park available for public view; if not, when will they become available. (3) What is the time frame for the construction of the park. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The National Capital Development Commission's plans for Tuggeranong Town Centre include the opportunity for a range of recreation facilities including a ``Water Theme Park'' or swimming complex. As government funding appears unlikely the Commission is proceeding on the basis that any such facility would be developed by private enterprise. The size of any such facility could vary from 0.5 ha. (traditional swimming pool) to 4.0 ha. (Water Theme Park), and its viability may need to be supported by other recreational facilities (eg. skating rink, squash courts, bowling alley etc.); the Commission has therefore asked the Department of Territories to call for Registration of Interest so that the type and size of any site release can be accurately gauged. The Department intends to advertise for Registration of Interest in the near future. (2) Pending the submissions received in response to the call for expressions of interest, the Commission has no detailed plans available of a Water Park or swimming pool. The Policy Plan, Development Plan and other supporting material for Tuggeranong Town Centre are however available for public view. (3) Possible sites for the Water Theme Park and swimming complex are in an area for which access will be provided by the Stage 2 roadworks for Tuggeranong Town Centre. The Commission will be seeking funds for these roadworkds as part of the 1986/87 programme appropriation. Normally sites cannot be released to private enterprise until site servicing is complete (say 1987/88) but in the case of a community facility such as a Water Park, if there is sufficient interest from the private sector for an early development, the Commission would investigate ways of allowing temporary access for construction purposes before permanent roadworks are completed. The approximate cost of preparing this reponse was $143.00.